| |
Main
INFECTED BY VIRUS
I can send messages but I can't get them.
A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
saved e-mails.
I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
that my computer has been repaired.
Yours, Larry Parr
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2008 16:16:25
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On Jun 21, 10:10 am, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > This hypothetical 'traitor' is no traitor at all bot, he's only
> > > following orders
>
> > Do you mean to say he was a mindless slave--
> > unable to think for himself or act freely of his own
> > accord?
>
> Effectively, yes. He can't just say this is dumb, this is stupid, this
> is outside my comfort zone - I'm going home & walk off, that's called
> desertion
So, if someone calls it a word which has negative
connotations, well then, you are stuck assailing
walls of bullets? Supposing one were to play 1. g4,
and point out that it's one of Sam Sloan's faves?
What then-- bad vibes... negative associations...
Must one /die/ to prove OTB that this move is
unsound? Is it not better (i.e. more effective) to
just sit in one's bunker, waiting for the inevitable
reckless charge-- then shoot him down in the
endgame?
> >What heinous country enslaves men
> > like dumb beasts? Thank God I don't live in such
> > a country as that... .
> All countries have some sort of military organisation, it's just the way
> things are on planet Earth.
Not true. Look at the superior species of
animals, at how /they/ handle things. Ants, for
instance, have no military ranks; nobody who
sits in Washington, barking out nonsense; yet
they can easily take on any and all comers, as
the need arises. (Lucky for us, they see no
advantage to controlling Middle Eastern oil.)
And then there are the cockroaches-- a
species which can easily survive our nuclear
attacks, poison gases, etc., etc., eventually
winning by attrition. Don't make the mistake
of thinking that Earth belongs to man-- for
more than a very brief moment in time. That's
what destroyed the dinosaurs, you know--
their thinking they were so very "big" and
important.
> National service is obligatory in
> Switzerland, you get a free army-knife
Made in China no doubt.
> & if you live in a block of flats
> it's forbidden to flush the toilet after 12pm..
Why not simply install ultra-quiet-flushing
toilets?
> > Perhaps. Bot it seems to me that if the object
> > of the game is to win a war, shooting the fellow
> > who orders his own men to serve the enemy (by
> > charging walls of bullets) is not treason, but just
> > giving him his due for signing on to fight for the
> > wrong side.
> But the hideous Bosch for their part were being given the same sort of
> demented direction, it's your turn 'fritzy' to storm a wall of Vickers
> mg fire, that sort of thing, so it really did seem to us trenchies that
> there was some evil plan afoot to kill us all off..
Nah. It's not planning, just utter indifference to
the vale of life (except their own, of course). To
/them/, army men are like rounds of ammunition.
It reminds me of the wannabe attackers who
unfailingly sacrifice their pawns to open up more
lines of (unsound) attack. Such idiots should not
be in charge of directing battles; what is needed
are intelligent, positional players who understand
that "pawns" are the heart and soul of chess.
Better still, if idiots were banned from positions
as heads of state, there would be far fewer wars
in the first place.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Jun 2008 00:10:33
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
help bot wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 10:51 pm, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This hypothetical 'traitor' is no traitor at all bot, he's only
> > following orders
>
> Do you mean to say he was a mindless slave--
> unable to think for himself or act freely of his own
> accord?
Effectively, yes. He can't just say this is dumb, this is stupid, this
is outside my comfort zone - I'm going home & walk off, that's called
desertion or somesuch. Now, if he shoots himself in the foot - that's
different..
>What heinous country enslaves men
> like dumb beasts? Thank God I don't live in such
> a country as that... .
All countries have some sort of military organisation, it's just the way
things are on planet Earth. National service is obligatory in
Switzerland, you get a free army-knife & if you live in a block of flats
it's forbidden to flush the toilet after 12pm..
.
> Perhaps. Bot it seems to me that if the object
> of the game is to win a war, shooting the fellow
> who orders his own men to serve the enemy (by
> charging walls of bullets) is not treason, but just
> giving him his due for signing on to fight for the
> wrong side.
But the hideous Bosch for their part were being given the same sort of
demented direction, it's your turn 'fritzy' to storm a wall of Vickers
mg fire, that sort of thing, so it really did seem to us trenchies that
there was some evil plan afoot to kill us all off..
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm
nobody.
>The rules clearly state that the
> throwing of games (i.e. battles) is punishable by
> forfeit; thus, my suggestion to "forfeit" him is all
> in accordance with the official rules as laid out
> in the FIDE Geneva Conventions.
>
> I think maybe we are not seeing eye-to-eye
> because of a discrepancy in the way we think
> about "orders", "rulers" and such. Whereas
> you obviously live in a world where slavery is
> practiced and widely accepted, I live... where,
> a very short time ago, the practice was largely
> dropped, except for the military and some of
> the jobs I've had. As the father of countless
> slave children wrote: "all men are created equal";
> true, some are a little more equal than others,
> which is why they did not see fit to free their
> "property" until after their own deaths. Anyway,
> in a world where all men are equal, nobody has
> the right to "order" others to charge walls of
> bullets; men are allowed to think for themselves
> (an astounding concept, I know). Just be
> forewarned: this entails taking responsibility for
> all of one's own blunders (the agony!)... .
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2008 03:32:10
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On Jun 18, 6:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Chess One wrote:
>
> >> what has knowledge of the intellectual kind to do with what people do at
> >> the
> >> test?
>
> > Intelligence coupled with a bit of heart & soul is a much better
> > combination than mere brute force thuggery - no?..
>
> Is it? By what measure of circumstance? But non intellectualism is no
> equivalent of thuggery. That is some Lockian prescription against what is of
> Rousseau. True, it is a dominant idea in practice, but the dominance is
> itself a forced act.
>
> The question is not even of an intellectual kind, but about our observations
> of ourselves. Did you get tested beyond your comfort zone so as to speak so
> surely?
>
>
>
> >> >> It is naive to think that only working class people were killed in the
> >> >> Great
> >> >> War [or in any war],
>
> >> > It's not only 'naive' it's also somewhat unrealistic, but look, Parr
> >> > did
> >> > this proportional 'thing' too? - So, if you take a random 100 from the
> >> > WW1 all killed, I'm figuring: 75% = working class 20% = middle class &
> >> > the remaining 5% = the upper-upper, so proportionally it's clear from
> >> > my
> >> > random 100
>
> >> you create these numbers to your own satisfaction?
>
> > Yep, 'though I don't know that 'satisfaction' is quite the right word
> > here.
>
> Yet you choose it for your own purpose.
>
> > You cavil @ my breakdown of a random 100 then?..
>
> I ask you where you got them. You obfusticate with your answer. So... you
> made them up to your own satisfaction, to suit suit your purpose.
>
> >> as proportion of British
> >> class casualties, I think there is very even distribution of such a gory
> >> statistic
>
> > This is no doubt true but is an entirely different proportion..
>
> Different than - proportion of what?
>
> >> > (we are talking human lives here) who did most of the dying.
> >> > This ties in with my observation that it's much more 'attractive' to
> >> > some, to talk of whole Oxbridge colleges being wiped out (Parr) rather
> >> > than, repeated over & over again, whole villages of cider-quaffing
> >> > farm-workers..
>
> >> i think there is no macabre satisfaction at all. there are only the
> >> brutal
> >> facts of it, often too ugly to consider.
>
> > No! nothing morbid here just, since I was a young fella, a fascination
> > with the filmed record of such conflict.
>
> You gained your knowledge from the movies?
>
> > WW1 sort of marked the
> > beginning of this & no, there really were'nt enough Victoria Crosses to
> > go round..
>
> >> you must be careful you do not
> >> create some antithesis to what you believe others to be, and react to
> >> that,
> >> rather than 'the position on the board.'
>
> > Not sure what 'board position' you have in mind here father Phil, but if
> > you're alluding to the perception that 'them that hates enough become
> > like the hated' - point taken..
>
> You make yourself an opponent to rail against. Whether that person is truly
> like that or a phantom of your imagination, is to the point. You need an
> antagonist, real or imagined, to make contrarian argument. This is of course
> reactionary, normal, and unhealthy to any sense of seeing for yourself how
> anything is.
>
> >> western civilisation was in a fight for its life, and barely squeaked
> >> through, though i think all played their part
>
> > It's often talked about 'what a close run thing' these major
> > conflagrations were in the last century & there seem to be an infinity
> > of 'what ifs' bandied about but complacent hindsight might suggest
> > otherwise. Britain in 1914 for example still had it's Empire & weren't
> > exactly a pushover. Similarly, the Allies in '39 - '45 had resources &
> > short of Germany getting 'the' bomb they were busted yet again. Japan
> > taking on the mighty USA?? Well, if ever there was an example of the
> > folly of delusion that was it..
>
> But America was really a sleeping giant, and without America all the
> European democracies would have toppled to the fascists - then America too -
> only extraordinary efforts brought the US into the war and such light as was
> not extinguished. Japan's attack on the US changed all, but that is the
> mistake of the enemy, not the wisdom of the allies!
>
>
>
>
>
> >> that is the debt that is owned the dead
>
> >> someone - my favorite philospher - dr jacob needleman, was walking by the
> >> vietnam memorial in dc and he said that it occured to him as he went down
> >> and down into the only horizontal and non-triumphal memorial in the
> >> states,
> >> that it was not as much he who regarded the dead, but the dead who asked
> >> of
> >> him what he was making of his life and liberty, for which they had given
> >> theirs
>
> >> there is no class in that, no internal warring of factions, there is
> >> human
> >> life relating to others
>
> >> that is one lesson from all such striving, and if no one ever shot at
> >> you,
> >> brother, do not speculate in the face of those who have been there, or
> >> whose
> >> names are now on some wall
>
> > Speculate? who's ferkin speculating?.
>
> I don't know. You do not use personal pronouns, do not claim experience, and
> hypothesise with ideas. So... sounds like you are.
>
> > Next time I'm in Europe I'm going
> > to make a point of attending one of those graveyards to the war dead,
> > the poignancy, the tranquility, the contemplation - strangely
> > uplifting..
>
> Will it be, or is that another idea? A romance?
>
> Placidaque ibi demum morte quievit. (And there, at length, he reposed in
> tranquil death) - Vergel.
Is that the Andean spelling of "Virgil?"
> Phil Innes
>
> > nobody.
>
> >> it is not your question to ask - it is theirs
>
> >> cordially, phil innes
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2008 16:37:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Placidaque ibi demum morte quievit. (And there, at length, he reposed in
>> tranquil death) - Vergel.
>
> Is that the Andean spelling of "Virgil?"
Children will write in!
Who will explain it?
PI
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2008 22:16:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On Jun 18, 10:51 pm, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
> This hypothetical 'traitor' is no traitor at all bot, he's only
> following orders
Do you mean to say he was a mindless slave--
unable to think for himself or act freely of his own
accord? What heinous country enslaves men
like dumb beasts? Thank God I don't live in such
a country as that... .
> (heard that somewhere before & indeed French troops
> decided on mutiny to show their contempt for the clueless stupidity of
> the orders issuing forth from on high: ~http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/ypres3.htm)infact, he was the one
> who blew the whistle & led 't lads o'er top into the now infamous wall
> of HE mauser rounds. So it can be seen that this "**all**" &
> "**single**" flummery is mere hair-splitting bot, sort of 'thin edge of
> wedge' stuff really..
Perhaps. Bot it seems to me that if the object
of the game is to win a war, shooting the fellow
who orders his own men to serve the enemy (by
charging walls of bullets) is not treason, but just
giving him his due for signing on to fight for the
wrong side. The rules clearly state that the
throwing of games (i.e. battles) is punishable by
forfeit; thus, my suggestion to "forfeit" him is all
in accordance with the official rules as laid out
in the FIDE Geneva Conventions.
I think maybe we are not seeing eye-to-eye
because of a discrepancy in the way we think
about "orders", "rulers" and such. Whereas
you obviously live in a world where slavery is
practiced and widely accepted, I live... where,
a very short time ago, the practice was largely
dropped, except for the military and some of
the jobs I've had. As the father of countless
slave children wrote: "all men are created equal";
true, some are a little more equal than others,
which is why they did not see fit to free their
"property" until after their own deaths. Anyway,
in a world where all men are equal, nobody has
the right to "order" others to charge walls of
bullets; men are allowed to think for themselves
(an astounding concept, I know). Just be
forewarned: this entails taking responsibility for
all of one's own blunders (the agony!)... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2008 14:19:48
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
help bot wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 5:52 pm, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Btw, did I miss your discussion/refutation of how Germany could
> > of/should of won in 1917 with TK or was 'The Sazonov Book' posting
> > supposed to do the business?..
>
> I haven't seen it either. These two were supposedly
> going to discuss, not how Germany should or could
> have won, but how different things might be today if
> the war had gone differently. While I don't put much
> faith in speculations such as these, I will say that as
> Mr. Parr, like me, lived through the Great War, his
> insights could perhaps be worth a read-- just to get
> the bizarre perspective of a die-hard commie-bashing
> Cold War propagandist.
Well, I suppose when he tires of riding around the streets of Bangkok on
his moped, terrorizing the locals with his trusty horsewhip, & putting
the occasional gratuitous boot into the odd mendicant just for the fun
of it, he may see fit to reply..
> Have you ever watched one of those "the making of"
> features, appended to a DVD movie?
No. I do have some small experience on big budget movie sets from a
while back. Awful lot of standing around doing nothing while scenes are
set up. Quite pedestrian really, if you're a nobody..
> In discussing
> the making of a movie, the commentators always
> seem to assume that since their movie was a
> success, everything that was done in making it was
> "therefore" done very well; they sit around talking
> about how great they are, how perfect the casting,
> acting, directing, etc., when in reality many movies
> contain beginner-style blunders.
Yes, yes bot, but this is where a good editor is worth his weight in
shekels..
> I imagine that a lot
> of folks think of wars in the very same manner: if "we"
> won in the end, our generals were therefore brilliant,
> their overall strategy was the best possible one, and
> so forth. Yet when I see some of the battles from
> these wars, I cannot help bot think of how rank
> beginners often play chess.
Yeah! well I'm just amazed @ how many 16yr. olds & under are rated 2300+
these days..
nobody.
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2008 12:51:59
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
help bot wrote:
> "...cornbot advocates executing **all** identified leaders..."
>
> As any sane person will recall, I suggested
> shooting this hypothetical **single** traitor for his
> alleged, treasonous action, and no one in his
> right mind could possibly mutate that into what
> /some lunatic/ wrote above.
This hypothetical 'traitor' is no traitor at all bot, he's only
following orders (heard that somewhere before & indeed French troops
decided on mutiny to show their contempt for the clueless stupidity of
the orders issuing forth from on high: ~
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/ypres3.htm)in fact, he was the one
who blew the whistle & led 't lads o'er top into the now infamous wall
of HE mauser rounds. So it can be seen that this "**all**" &
"**single**" flummery is mere hair-splitting bot, sort of 'thin edge of
wedge' stuff really..
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Another problem seems to be the "conversion"
> of bullet-wall chargers into heroes of sorts, via
> labeling those who fail to charge walls of lead
> as cowards in need of vindication. To me, that
> is a bizarre way of interpreting things. In fact,
> this brings us back to Baron von Red: was he
> a coward for not getting shot down, for dodging
> bullets successfully so many times? Did he
> suddenly "convert" into a hero when his plane
> finally crashed? I don't think that approach
> holds water. If anything, the fallen are /less
> able/ than the living to fight for the cause, to
> continue on with heroics (stealing land from
> the Indians, killing fellow Americans who
> desire to secede from the Union, zapping
> Germans, pummeling Commies, stealing oil
> from Arabs, fighting for, um, Freedom and all
> that stuff). Should the /less able/ get all the
> credit for heroism? Of course not! So then,
> those who charge walls of lead (except for
> Superman maybe) are not "heroic", they are
> misguided; in dying this way, they contribute
> far less to the cause for which they have been
> recruited than those who duck bullets and go
> around walls of fire, and live to fight another
> day.
>
> As actor Clint Eastwood put it: "Dying ain't
> much of a living, boy". Leave the dying to the
> enemy; let /him/ charge walls of lead; let /him/
> pretend that in so doing, he is proving himself
> to be a "hero". Don't be like GM Topalov or
> Leko or whoever it was that impaled himself
> against GM Kramnik; just take the draw and
> you will have White in the next game. Don't
> forget how the war with Grenada went down;
> call me a "coward" if you like, but when I flew
> over, the enemy saw my sub and fled in terror.
> I did not even have to shoot a single NO2
> cannister... .
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2008 17:25:46
From:
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On Jun 18, 7:10=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Placidaque ibi demum morte quievit. (And there, at length, he reposed in
> tranquil death) - Vergel.
>
> Phil Innes
Ah yes, Vergel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergel_Meneses),
author of that great Romanian epic, the Upanishad, starring Corydoras
Aeneas. He served as Al Dente's guide through Invierno in the epic
poem Comedia dell' Arte.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2008 07:25:58
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jun 18, 7:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Placidaque ibi demum morte quievit. (And there, at length, he reposed in
> tranquil death) - Vergel.
>
> Phil Innes
Ah yes, Vergel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergel_Meneses),
author of that great Romanian epic, the Upanishad,
**you are mistaken, he wrote Warts and Peas, Part Deux, The TD Strikes Back.
starring Corydoras
Aeneas.
**looks like Ben Foster is going to play at Chessville in the movie 'The
Messenger' taking on Convekta's engine, first I thought it was to be Woody
H.
He served as Al Dente's guide through Invierno
**yes, Invierno is now a successfully franchised Italian noodle joint
in the epic
poem Comedia dell' Arte.
**Anyway... the response above was Verging on topic, a sullen death-wish
topic; mentioning a context often found in old men, they won't give up, and
look forward to lying down forever - and resent anyone disturbing their
process. This is the sad story of USCF's decline in recent years, but at
least its a classical epitaph.
The thing of it is, its not the whole story! - and new young vigorous people
attempt to wrest the matter from being buried with the former proprietors so
that a Terence could say, 'Salva res est, bene est tantare.' [its as well to
try to save the matter].
And since regretable customs have now changed for the worst, this is
necessary - heretofore people who were still making plans, nonsense plans
and schemes, could be forcefully retired to monasterys.
Nowadays we see the results of abandoning this practice, as last
dramatically demonstrated by an English King who lost an entire continent -
so that our current equivalent is The Madness of King Bill, who is losing
same continent! and on whose tomb will surely be wrote, ruefully
quod non opus est, asse carum est
Quod sciam! [lol] Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2008 16:05:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On Jun 18, 5:52 pm, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
> Btw, did I miss your discussion/refutation of how Germany could
> of/should of won in 1917 with TK or was 'The Sazonov Book' posting
> supposed to do the business?..
I haven't seen it either. These two were supposedly
going to discuss, not how Germany should or could
have won, but how different things might be today if
the war had gone differently. While I don't put much
faith in speculations such as these, I will say that as
Mr. Parr, like me, lived through the Great War, his
insights could perhaps be worth a read-- just to get
the bizarre perspective of a die-hard commie-bashing
Cold War propagandist.
Have you ever watched one of those "the making of"
features, appended to a DVD movie? In discussing
the making of a movie, the commentators always
seem to assume that since their movie was a
success, everything that was done in making it was
"therefore" done very well; they sit around talking
about how great they are, how perfect the casting,
acting, directing, etc., when in reality many movies
contain beginner-style blunders. I imagine that a lot
of folks think of wars in the very same manner: if "we"
won in the end, our generals were therefore brilliant,
their overall strategy was the best possible one, and
so forth. Yet when I see some of the battles from
these wars, I cannot help bot think of how rank
beginners often play chess.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2008 07:52:38
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> SHIFTING GROUND
PARR'S QUICKSAND INTO WHICH HIS FERVENT HOPE IS nobody WILL MIRE
HIMSELF, BUT NOT THIS TIME SIR..
>
> Our Nobody anon is shifting ground.
So you say, but I beg to differ & it's lower-case 'n' in nobody..
>
> He earlier asserted that Haig wanted to keep
> the killing going so as to cull groups whence
> would come revolutionary types.
Now, you encapsulate my meaning rather well & I fail to see any
retraction from me. Can you prove otherwise? Remember, boobies aren't
known for profound thought & it's probable he was simply following a
primitive, inbred, sort of instinctual ulterior motive..
>
> What was actually happening -- and Haig would
> have been well aware of the fact -- is that his own
> class and the middle-middle and upper-middle types
> who aspired to join his class -- were being very
> effectively culled.
Boobies effectively have one person in mind. Class loyalty is not a
known trait of these grand porkers..
>
> The destruction of the Oxbridge and associated
> groups was remarked upon during the war very often,
> and to be sure, there are the memoirs, including Vera
> Brittain's "Testament of Youth" and Robert Graves'
> "Good-Bye to All That." Graves especially treats it as
> a given that everyone understood what was happening to
> the ruling class and its supporters.
And should we lament the passing of an old order, even to this day?
Indeed, there are many around, the late A. Waugh being a notable iirc,
who were forever banging on about a return to domestic servitude as the
apt solution for all manner of social ills..
>
> Now our Nobody is making a different argument.
> Well and good. The dialogue will take a more sensible
> course perhaps.
Btw, did I miss your discussion/refutation of how Germany could
of/should of won in 1917 with TK or was 'The Sazonov Book' posting
supposed to do the business?..
nobody.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2008 08:04:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On Jun 14, 10:55 pm, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > Yeah, cornbot advocates executing all identified leaders, there & then
> > > in the muddy trench, that way the inherent coward vindicates himself..
> > Rough estimate of Nobody's IQ, based on reading
> > comprehension skills exhibited above: zero.
> Look here bot, somewhere in this thread you & I sidetracked into a
> surreal scenario involving F 16's, Fokker triplanes & flying submarines,
> also somewhere (the subject header remained the same but my system seems
> to have 'lost' the exact post) I distinctly remember you advocating
> bumping-off them giving the orders there & then in the slimy, reeking,
> rat-infested mud. That's all really, so my comprehension skills are just
> fine - thks. I mean, do you seriously think I'd dare impugn the manifest
> bravery of helpbot's Roger Ramjet persona?..
If you are referring to the single instance wherein
you allegedly were ordered to charge a so-called
"wall" of bullets, you messed up big-time:
"...cornbot advocates executing **all** identified leaders..."
As any sane person will recall, I suggested
shooting this hypothetical **single** traitor for his
alleged, treasonous action, and no one in his
right mind could possibly mutate that into what
/some lunatic/ wrote above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem seems to be the "conversion"
of bullet-wall chargers into heroes of sorts, via
labeling those who fail to charge walls of lead
as cowards in need of vindication. To me, that
is a bizarre way of interpreting things. In fact,
this brings us back to Baron von Red: was he
a coward for not getting shot down, for dodging
bullets successfully so many times? Did he
suddenly "convert" into a hero when his plane
finally crashed? I don't think that approach
holds water. If anything, the fallen are /less
able/ than the living to fight for the cause, to
continue on with heroics (stealing land from
the Indians, killing fellow Americans who
desire to secede from the Union, zapping
Germans, pummeling Commies, stealing oil
from Arabs, fighting for, um, Freedom and all
that stuff). Should the /less able/ get all the
credit for heroism? Of course not! So then,
those who charge walls of lead (except for
Superman maybe) are not "heroic", they are
misguided; in dying this way, they contribute
far less to the cause for which they have been
recruited than those who duck bullets and go
around walls of fire, and live to fight another
day.
As actor Clint Eastwood put it: "Dying ain't
much of a living, boy". Leave the dying to the
enemy; let /him/ charge walls of lead; let /him/
pretend that in so doing, he is proving himself
to be a "hero". Don't be like GM Topalov or
Leko or whoever it was that impaled himself
against GM Kramnik; just take the draw and
you will have White in the next game. Don't
forget how the war with Grenada went down;
call me a "coward" if you like, but when I flew
over, the enemy saw my sub and fled in terror.
I did not even have to shoot a single NO2
cannister... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2008 12:55:51
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
help bot wrote:
>
> On May 30, 1:25 am, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, cornbot advocates executing all identified leaders, there & then
> > in the muddy trench, that way the inherent coward vindicates himself..
>
> Rough estimate of Nobody's IQ, based on reading
> comprehension skills exhibited above: zero.
Look here bot, somewhere in this thread you & I sidetracked into a
surreal scenario involving F 16's, Fokker triplanes & flying submarines,
also somewhere (the subject header remained the same but my system seems
to have 'lost' the exact post) I distinctly remember you advocating
bumping-off them giving the orders there & then in the slimy, reeking,
rat-infested mud. That's all really, so my comprehension skills are just
fine - thks. I mean, do you seriously think I'd dare impugn the manifest
bravery of helpbot's Roger Ramjet persona?..
>
> Some loon specifically identified one fellow as a
> nuisance, and then tried to suggest that it was a
> good strategy to take out his entire country,
> continent, hemisphere or whatever. I pointed out
> that this was very poor marksmanship, which is
> quite true. [In essence, the lunatic's argument is
> in dire need of revision.]
>
> As for eliminating "leaders", I have not considered
> the matter since here in the USA, they are merely
> fictional creatures. (Should one sacrifice three
> Queens for nine Bishops? I haven't considered it
> either.)
>
> Why is it that these dullards have so much
> difficulty with their sloppy reasoning skills? It's so
> easy to learn; they even have DVDs you can buy
> and just watch on screen, which will teach you
> folks how to alleviate these problems a bit. Let
> me know if you need any help with this.
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2008 12:21:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On May 30, 1:25 am, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
> Yeah, cornbot advocates executing all identified leaders, there & then
> in the muddy trench, that way the inherent coward vindicates himself..
Rough estimate of Nobody's IQ, based on reading
comprehension skills exhibited above: zero.
Some loon specifically identified one fellow as a
nuisance, and then tried to suggest that it was a
good strategy to take out his entire country,
continent, hemisphere or whatever. I pointed out
that this was very poor marksmanship, which is
quite true. [In essence, the lunatic's argument is
in dire need of revision.]
As for eliminating "leaders", I have not considered
the matter since here in the USA, they are merely
fictional creatures. (Should one sacrifice three
Queens for nine Bishops? I haven't considered it
either.)
Why is it that these dullards have so much
difficulty with their sloppy reasoning skills? It's so
easy to learn; they even have DVDs you can buy
and just watch on screen, which will teach you
folks how to alleviate these problems a bit. Let
me know if you need any help with this.
-- help bot
|
| |
SHIFTING GROUND
Our Nobody anon is shifting ground.
He earlier asserted that Haig wanted to keep
the killing going so as to cull groups whence
would come revolutionary types.
What was actually happening -- and Haig would
have been well aware of the fact -- is that his own
class and the middle-middle and upper-middle types
who aspired to join his class -- were being very
effectively culled.
The destruction of the Oxbridge and associated
groups was remarked upon during the war very often,
and to be sure, there are the memoirs, including Vera
Brittain's "Testament of Youth" and Robert Graves'
"Good-Bye to All That." Graves especially treats it as
a given that everyone understood what was happening to
the ruling class and its supporters.
Now our Nobody is making a different argument.
Well and good. The dialogue will take a more sensible
course perhaps.
Yours, Larry Parr
nobody wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
> > Should /nobody/ resent Haig for resisting German Imperialism,..
>
> I'm not about to resent Haig for anything at all. To me he's just a
> classic _booby_ type (see; W. Thackeray - Vanity Fair) who unfortunately
> in real life, had the fate of millions of souls, for which I suspect he
> cared not one iota, in his thick-fingered & butchery mits..
>
> > then /nobody/
> > should also resent Blair/Orwell who clearly saw that unless a battle was
> > fought, then these forces would completely extinguish Western Culture among
> > the established and emerging democratic nations. And like Churchill, he
> > thought they needed absolute resistance.
>
> I don't think G. Orwell & D. Haig are really of the same ilk - do you?
> Also, German Imperialism & that particularly virulent strain of European
> fascism - nazism, aren't the same things either. They both needed to be
> resisted & the latter extinguished. Sadly, they - the nazis, the
> fanatics (swastika'd soccer hooligans, jackbooted highway cops,
> overzealous deckchair attendants etc.) are, like some noxious
> vegetation, still very much with us today. The difference is _we_ do
> know about them now..
>
> > It is naive to think that only working class people were killed in the Great
> > War [or in any war],
>
> It's not only 'naive' it's also somewhat unrealistic, but look, Parr did
> this proportional 'thing' too? - So, if you take a random 100 from the
> WW1 all killed, I'm figuring: 75% = working class 20% = middle class &
> the remaining 5% = the upper-upper, so proportionally it's clear from my
> random 100 (we are talking human lives here) who did most of the dying.
> This ties in with my observation that it's much more 'attractive' to
> some, to talk of whole Oxbridge colleges being wiped out (Parr) rather
> than, repeated over & over again, whole villages of cider-quaffing
> farm-workers..
>
> nobody.
>
>
> > and in proportion to their respective class sizes,
> > actually the middle and upper classes did more of the dying, so that other
> > people could continue to do the living.
> >
> > Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 30 May 2008 15:25:48
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
nobody wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > EQUALITY OF THE GRAVEYARD
> >
> > Our Anonymouse calls Trotsky a brilliant man "in
> > effect."
>
> Yes, yes - no need to keep crapping on with your inhouse 'anonymouse'
> jargon, & I was disturbed in my proof-reading & composition by the
> visitation of an expected friend. So, "in effect" apparently jars
> somewhat with your heightened appreciation of the English tongue. Fine,
> it does with me to the extent that "in short" is the preferred
> grammatical shovel now, as in ' in short, Trotsky was a brilliant man
> '..
>
> I shall return - 'nobody'..
>
> > I would call him a brilliant man even had he
> > ended up as a radical editor in the Bronx. Indeed,
> > one of his radio addresses from Mexico began with the
> > salutation, "Workers and peasants of the Bronx." He
> > probably was the greatest military organizer since Napoleon.
Nap. was surrounded by highly intelligent bourgeois advisors. Nap.
basically decided when & where the army marched & so I think Trotsky
would be very pleased @ L. Parr's comparison. pls. see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trotsky_grave.jpg - & thankyou for
your respects. Of course, all this bespeaks the amazing failure of arms
of the US, circa. 1942, @ Corregidor: -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Corregidor, wherein the
lackadaisical, gum-chewing, cheap aftershave smelling, & sleazy Mexican
types in charge of the grand citadel, ran, pig-bum to the air, squealing
& so on, into the Filipino undergrowth. These miscreants were soon
rounded up by members of the 1st. Imperial 'babon'(raging baboon)
schock, shinto battalion & duly subjected to customary rape &
humiliation procedures & then farmed out to various internment camps -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March. ..
Nobody..
> >
> > The Bronx had workers in 1938 or so and still has
> > some in 2008. The foolish part of the salutation was
> > "peasants," of which there were few indeed 70 years
> > back. These days there may be many, which leads to
> > the issue of whether Trotsky was a seer.
> >
> > Our anonymouse tries to change the subject after
> > I noted that the Oxbridge crew and many tens of
> > thousands of others from the same general class
> > (middle, upper middle and upper) were loyal to the war
> > until, more or less, the very end.
You're the dude trying to change the subject - Lars. I can't see any
dopy dude from Djermany coming over here & trying to git into my dead
grandmother's anal enclave..
>>The point is that
> > General Haig, if he had cared about eliminating radicals,
> > would have concluded the war with an armistice rather
> > than lose the brilliant social and intellectual bulwark
> > that had been created by 1914.
Wtf are you going on about? Haigy-boy was primarly concerned about his
bank acc. & the fluctuations in beef prices in the Argentine..
> >
> > Studies of the incidence of loss in WWI among the
> > various classes have been done. They were summed
> > up by historian Jay Winter for PBS. Namely, that
> > officers from the elevated classes were more likely to
> > die than the schmoes who weighed 115 pounds and
> > frequently had trouble going over the top if weighted
> > with much equipment. Though, of course, in total
> > numbers, the schmoes did most of the dying for King
> > and Country.
Yes, yes - if you're trying to defeat an enemy you basically need a
quoitant of about 3 to 1 particularly if their Djermans. Thks. America
for overflowing Europa with waves & waves of overweight 'schmoes' _all_
trying to do business & sell their 'macca' franchises..
WW1 was a great cull of young & predominately young male potential.
That's my position & I rest with my brothers in Flanders..
> > The main critics of WWI were the radical left in
> > Europe and the U.S. Also the free-market,
> > anti-interventionist right in America.
> >
> > When Taylor Kingston and this writer begin
> > discussing WWI issues, I will likely ignore the
> > anonymouse if he can do no better than what he
> > has written thus far.
OOh! ok - sweetie!..
> >
> > Several years ago I read the Dewey Commission
> > hearings on Trotsky's "guilt" or "innocence" of the
> > Stalinist charges leveled against him in the 1930s.
> > One regrets that he was not "guilty" of plotting to
> > overthrow the Soviet worker's power.
Why does one regret this? (wonders, scratches head, wonders - uh?)..
> >
> > If the anonymouse is a Trotskyist, he likely
> > already knows Max Schachtman's pamphlet on
> > this subject. It is the best fairly short read about
> > the "evidence" adduced re Trotsky in Moscow. For
> > those wishing a more scholarly look, then Robert
> > Conquest's "The Great Terror" has become the standard work.
Nah, nah, nah & nah. Never heard of Mr. Scharktman or his piddling
little flyer - did he have warts on his nose or 'boogers' coming out
thereof?..
> >
> > The leftish writer H.G. Wells was a typical example of
> > the patriotic left during WWI.
Well, they do have to be somewhere in the Cosmos - Lars. I rememember as
a young lad, being quite enthralled by this chaps 'take' on reality..
> >One recollects the
> > progressive twaddle about field-grey socialism:
> > equality in the trenches. The lieutenants and the
> > captains -- the children of the Kiplings and the
> > Nelsons -- go over the top, too. You have the
> > equality of the graveyard.
Yeah, cornbot advocates executing all identified leaders, there & then
in the muddy trench, that way the inherent coward vindicates himself..
|
| |
Date: 30 May 2008 01:44:35
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> EQUALITY OF THE GRAVEYARD
>
> Our Anonymouse calls Trotsky a brilliant man "in
> effect."
Yes, yes - no need to keep crapping on with your inhouse 'anonymouse'
jargon, & I was disturbed in my proof-reading & composition by the
visitation of an expected friend. So, "in effect" apparently jars
somewhat with your heightened appreciation of the English tongue. Fine,
it does with me to the extent that "in short" is the preferred
grammatical shovel now, as in ' in short, Trotsky was a brilliant man
'..
I shall return - 'nobody'..
> I would call him a brilliant man even had he
> ended up as a radical editor in the Bronx. Indeed,
> one of his radio addresses from Mexico began with the
> salutation, "Workers and peasants of the Bronx." He
> probably was the greatest military organizer since Napoleon.
>
> The Bronx had workers in 1938 or so and still has
> some in 2008. The foolish part of the salutation was
> "peasants," of which there were few indeed 70 years
> back. These days there may be many, which leads to
> the issue of whether Trotsky was a seer.
>
> Our anonymouse tries to change the subject after
> I noted that the Oxbridge crew and many tens of
> thousands of others from the same general class
> (middle, upper middle and upper) were loyal to the war
> until, more or less, the very end. The point is that
> General Haig, if he had cared about eliminating radicals,
> would have concluded the war with an armistice rather
> than lose the brilliant social and intellectual bulwark
> that had been created by 1914.
>
> Studies of the incidence of loss in WWI among the
> various classes have been done. They were summed
> up by historian Jay Winter for PBS. Namely, that
> officers from the elevated classes were more likely to
> die than the schmoes who weighed 115 pounds and
> frequently had trouble going over the top if weighted
> with much equipment. Though, of course, in total
> numbers, the schmoes did most of the dying for King
> and Country.
>
> The main critics of WWI were the radical left in
> Europe and the U.S. Also the free-market,
> anti-interventionist right in America.
>
> When Taylor Kingston and this writer begin
> discussing WWI issues, I will likely ignore the
> anonymouse if he can do no better than what he
> has written thus far.
>
> Several years ago I read the Dewey Commission
> hearings on Trotsky's "guilt" or "innocence" of the
> Stalinist charges leveled against him in the 1930s.
> One regrets that he was not "guilty" of plotting to
> overthrow the Soviet worker's power.
>
> If the anonymouse is a Trotskyist, he likely
> already knows Max Schachtman's pamphlet on
> this subject. It is the best fairly short read about
> the "evidence" adduced re Trotsky in Moscow. For
> those wishing a more scholarly look, then Robert
> Conquest's "The Great Terror" has become the standard work.
>
> The leftish writer H.G. Wells was a typical example of
> the patriotic left during WWI. One recollects the
> progressive twaddle about field-grey socialism:
> equality in the trenches. The lieutenants and the
> captains -- the children of the Kiplings and the
> Nelsons -- go over the top, too. You have the
> equality of the graveyard.
>
> nobody wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > GENERAL HAIG
> >
> > > WWI wiped out entire colleges of the Oxbridge
> > > crowd, which at the start and far into the war were
> > > absolutely loyal.
> >
> > I know that, & I just knew you'd start off with something in this vein,
> > much more 'attractive' than - WW1 decimated whole villages of
> > cider-quaffing farm-laborours - no?. Besides, the Oxbridge crowd (think
> > later communistic cells) while indubitally an elite, were no where near
> > the small number of _boobies_ who actually controlled things & as such,
> > to their reptillian minds, represented the most excellent cannon-fodder
> > - indeed!..
> >
> > >The percentage rate of attrition for
> > > those upper class types was higher than for the lower
> > > classes.
> >
> > Wonder how you work that one out? - maybe it depends on how you hold
> > your knife & fork..
> >
> > > Once again, a great memoir to read for what
> > > happened to higher society is Vera Brittain's
> > > "Testament of Youth."
> > >
> > > For our anonymouse,
> >
> > Oh! - Marlon Brando, George Orwell, Diana Dors etc. ..
> >
> > > you might try C. S.
> > > Forrester's "The General" for an understanding of
> > > Douglas Haig. Yes, by the author of the Hornblower
> > > books -- and a serious novel by any standards. For a
> > > defense of the hideous Haig, you won't do better than
> > > John Buchan's four volume history of WWI (not his
> > > Nelson's War series of about 26 volumes, if memory
> > > serves).
> >
> > Thanks for the pointers, but 4 & 26 vols. I'm sure I don't have that
> > much time, what with the anticipated WW1 exchange between you & TK on
> > the event horizon too..
> >
> > > It hurts to bring up Buchan, whom one cannot
> > > help to admire in many ways for his 190 or so IQ and
> > > ceaseless Presbyterian industry. But he had the class
> > > solidarity with his level of society when the going
> > > was toughest.
> > >
> > > There is an essay on Buchan in The New
> > > Criterion. It is very well done and can be found
> > > somewhere on the Internet. His student career at
> > > Oxford defies explanation for its sheer brilliance.
> > > He was possibly the greatest of the late Victorian and
> > > Edwardian geniuses. He died in 1940, while serving as
> > > Governor General of Canada.
> >
> > Oh! another genius - I'll google the chap for a handy overview. Here's
> > one for you Larry, - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky - it's a
> > massive entry with hundreds of intriguing links. The excellent photo
> > depicts (regardless of political persuasion) a man intent on changing
> > the World, a man of destiny, in effect - a brilliant man..
> >
> > >
> > > Readers of this forum may remember him as the author
> > > of The 39 Steps, which Alfred Hitchcock made into a
> > > famous film. It is about the least of his novels. For aspiring
> > > minds, I recommend Greenmantle as a starting point. A bio
> > > he wrote of Montrose is very good.
> > >
> > > Yours, Larry Parr
|
| |
EQUALITY OF THE GRAVEYARD
Our Anonymouse calls Trotsky a brilliant man "in
effect." I would call him a brilliant man even had he
ended up as a radical editor in the Bronx. Indeed,
one of his radio addresses from Mexico began with the
salutation, "Workers and peasants of the Bronx." He
probably was the greatest military organizer since Napoleon.
The Bronx had workers in 1938 or so and still has
some in 2008. The foolish part of the salutation was
"peasants," of which there were few indeed 70 years
back. These days there may be many, which leads to
the issue of whether Trotsky was a seer.
Our anonymouse tries to change the subject after
I noted that the Oxbridge crew and many tens of
thousands of others from the same general class
(middle, upper middle and upper) were loyal to the war
until, more or less, the very end. The point is that
General Haig, if he had cared about eliminating radicals,
would have concluded the war with an armistice rather
than lose the brilliant social and intellectual bulwark
that had been created by 1914.
Studies of the incidence of loss in WWI among the
various classes have been done. They were summed
up by historian Jay Winter for PBS. Namely, that
officers from the elevated classes were more likely to
die than the schmoes who weighed 115 pounds and
frequently had trouble going over the top if weighted
with much equipment. Though, of course, in total
numbers, the schmoes did most of the dying for King
and Country.
The main critics of WWI were the radical left in
Europe and the U.S. Also the free-market,
anti-interventionist right in America.
When Taylor Kingston and this writer begin
discussing WWI issues, I will likely ignore the
anonymouse if he can do no better than what he
has written thus far.
Several years ago I read the Dewey Commission
hearings on Trotsky's "guilt" or "innocence" of the
Stalinist charges leveled against him in the 1930s.
One regrets that he was not "guilty" of plotting to
overthrow the Soviet worker's power.
If the anonymouse is a Trotskyist, he likely
already knows Max Schachtman's pamphlet on
this subject. It is the best fairly short read about
the "evidence" adduced re Trotsky in Moscow. For
those wishing a more scholarly look, then Robert
Conquest's "The Great Terror" has become the standard work.
The leftish writer H.G. Wells was a typical example of
the patriotic left during WWI. One recollects the
progressive twaddle about field-grey socialism:
equality in the trenches. The lieutenants and the
captains -- the children of the Kiplings and the
Nelsons -- go over the top, too. You have the
equality of the graveyard.
nobody wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > GENERAL HAIG
>
> > WWI wiped out entire colleges of the Oxbridge
> > crowd, which at the start and far into the war were
> > absolutely loyal.
>
> I know that, & I just knew you'd start off with something in this vein,
> much more 'attractive' than - WW1 decimated whole villages of
> cider-quaffing farm-laborours - no?. Besides, the Oxbridge crowd (think
> later communistic cells) while indubitally an elite, were no where near
> the small number of _boobies_ who actually controlled things & as such,
> to their reptillian minds, represented the most excellent cannon-fodder
> - indeed!..
>
> >The percentage rate of attrition for
> > those upper class types was higher than for the lower
> > classes.
>
> Wonder how you work that one out? - maybe it depends on how you hold
> your knife & fork..
>
> > Once again, a great memoir to read for what
> > happened to higher society is Vera Brittain's
> > "Testament of Youth."
> >
> > For our anonymouse,
>
> Oh! - Marlon Brando, George Orwell, Diana Dors etc. ..
>
> > you might try C. S.
> > Forrester's "The General" for an understanding of
> > Douglas Haig. Yes, by the author of the Hornblower
> > books -- and a serious novel by any standards. For a
> > defense of the hideous Haig, you won't do better than
> > John Buchan's four volume history of WWI (not his
> > Nelson's War series of about 26 volumes, if memory
> > serves).
>
> Thanks for the pointers, but 4 & 26 vols. I'm sure I don't have that
> much time, what with the anticipated WW1 exchange between you & TK on
> the event horizon too..
>
> > It hurts to bring up Buchan, whom one cannot
> > help to admire in many ways for his 190 or so IQ and
> > ceaseless Presbyterian industry. But he had the class
> > solidarity with his level of society when the going
> > was toughest.
> >
> > There is an essay on Buchan in The New
> > Criterion. It is very well done and can be found
> > somewhere on the Internet. His student career at
> > Oxford defies explanation for its sheer brilliance.
> > He was possibly the greatest of the late Victorian and
> > Edwardian geniuses. He died in 1940, while serving as
> > Governor General of Canada.
>
> Oh! another genius - I'll google the chap for a handy overview. Here's
> one for you Larry, - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky - it's a
> massive entry with hundreds of intriguing links. The excellent photo
> depicts (regardless of political persuasion) a man intent on changing
> the World, a man of destiny, in effect - a brilliant man..
>
> >
> > Readers of this forum may remember him as the author
> > of The 39 Steps, which Alfred Hitchcock made into a
> > famous film. It is about the least of his novels. For aspiring
> > minds, I recommend Greenmantle as a starting point. A bio
> > he wrote of Montrose is very good.
> >
> > Yours, Larry Parr
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2008 19:57:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On May 28, 10:07 am, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > & me too - After being ordered 'oer the top (1st Somme, Aug. 1916) me &
> > > the lads ran into a wall of Jerman, Maxim, machine-gun bullets. My guts
> > > disengaged from me bowels & I lay there quite dead.
>
> > Well, if you can't see a spray of .50 caliber bullets
>
> Actually, they were 7.92mm HE rounds the filthy bosch were using in
> defiance of the Hague Convention -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92x57mm_Mauser& I did say a "wall" of
> them - helpnot..
I stand corrected. (At that speed, I could not tell
the difference, but I erred in attributing our inferior
system to the Germans, who of course used the
metric system and their own guns, not ours.)
As far as the wall goes, bullets cannot penetrate
far into the earth; thus, you ought to have shot the
fellow who gave that order and stayed put in your
trench. (Only a *traitor* would order Allied forces
to charge into a wall of machine-gun fire, obviously;
nobody ever won a war by slaughtering their own
army just to use up a bit of enemy ammo... .)
> > As an F-16 fighter
> > pilot you would be strapped in, and all you have to
> > do is strafe the biplanes and avoid hitting them as
> > they fall to earth; the feeling is that they are fixed--
> > or just barely moving, at best. The truth is, it's very
> > difficult to fly s-lo-w enough...
> You just have to fly as _fast_ as possible, they won't hear you coming &
> the turbulence will pop their wing stays & shred the canvas causing them
> to fall out of the sky. You'll save on tomahawks & cruise missiles &
> when H. Goering, in desperation manages to kamikaze his distinctive red
> Fokker triplane into your F-16 you simply press the eject-button &
> parachute safely down behind adoring Canadian lines..
You clearly have no idea what those planes
cost to build! Just as with a nuclear submarine,
you have to return with the ship, or (dead) upon
it. Just what experience do you have flying any
of these vehicles? (I flew a sub during the war
with Grenada, which you may recall "we" won
in short order-- not that I'm trying to take the
credit, mind you.)
> When Marx was alive 1% owned & controlled 99% of Russia's land & wealth
Sounds remarkably similar to Mr. Putin. Are
they by any chance related, I wonder?
> & people like Trotsky, Lenin & plenty others were intent on changing
> that dynamic. Bit like what happened in France 100 odd years previous &
> another 100 odd years previous in England. Can't see what's so hard to
> fathom in people doing something to even things up a bit.
Well, my objection had nothing to do with
evening things up between the rich and the
poor. As I recall, I pointed out the *poor
marksmanship* of killing off hundreds of
thousands of soldiers, etc., when the
alleged problem had been narrowed down
to a single man. Perhaps the original
argument just needs a bit more work?
> Lumping a hippy ratbag & psychopathic nutcase in with these dudes is just plain
> silly - you were being silly - right?
You lost me. Are you referring to one of
my many postings where I took issue with
Taylor Kingston? Larry Parr? Nearly-IMnes?
I did not know them in the sixties, and had
no idea that any or all of them were hippies.
In fact, only Sam Sloan has described his,
um, activities in that era here, so far as I can
recall.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2008 12:30:25
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> GENERAL HAIG
> WWI wiped out entire colleges of the Oxbridge
> crowd, which at the start and far into the war were
> absolutely loyal.
I know that, & I just knew you'd start off with something in this vein,
much more 'attractive' than - WW1 decimated whole villages of
cider-quaffing farm-laborours - no?. Besides, the Oxbridge crowd (think
later communistic cells) while indubitally an elite, were no where near
the small number of _boobies_ who actually controlled things & as such,
to their reptillian minds, represented the most excellent cannon-fodder
- indeed!..
>The percentage rate of attrition for
> those upper class types was higher than for the lower
> classes.
Wonder how you work that one out? - maybe it depends on how you hold
your knife & fork..
> Once again, a great memoir to read for what
> happened to higher society is Vera Brittain's
> "Testament of Youth."
>
> For our anonymouse,
Oh! - Marlon Brando, George Orwell, Diana Dors etc. ..
> you might try C. S.
> Forrester's "The General" for an understanding of
> Douglas Haig. Yes, by the author of the Hornblower
> books -- and a serious novel by any standards. For a
> defense of the hideous Haig, you won't do better than
> John Buchan's four volume history of WWI (not his
> Nelson's War series of about 26 volumes, if memory
> serves).
Thanks for the pointers, but 4 & 26 vols. I'm sure I don't have that
much time, what with the anticipated WW1 exchange between you & TK on
the event horizon too..
> It hurts to bring up Buchan, whom one cannot
> help to admire in many ways for his 190 or so IQ and
> ceaseless Presbyterian industry. But he had the class
> solidarity with his level of society when the going
> was toughest.
>
> There is an essay on Buchan in The New
> Criterion. It is very well done and can be found
> somewhere on the Internet. His student career at
> Oxford defies explanation for its sheer brilliance.
> He was possibly the greatest of the late Victorian and
> Edwardian geniuses. He died in 1940, while serving as
> Governor General of Canada.
Oh! another genius - I'll google the chap for a handy overview. Here's
one for you Larry, - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky - it's a
massive entry with hundreds of intriguing links. The excellent photo
depicts (regardless of political persuasion) a man intent on changing
the World, a man of destiny, in effect - a brilliant man..
>
> Readers of this forum may remember him as the author
> of The 39 Steps, which Alfred Hitchcock made into a
> famous film. It is about the least of his novels. For aspiring
> minds, I recommend Greenmantle as a starting point. A bio
> he wrote of Montrose is very good.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2008 09:55:18
From: William Hyde
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On May 28, 12:16 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> SPONTANEOUS REPAIR?
>
> I wrote incorrectly that my computer email had
> been repaired. So far as I can determine, it repaired
> itself. Is there such a thing as spontaneous computer
> tissue repair?
>
> Several of you are computer mavens. Let me
> describe what happened.
No maven here, but if you have "automatic update" on your
windows system enabled, Microsoft will be continually
sending you new features, which once in a while will
mess something up. Particularly if you have any non-monopoly
software on your system.
A few weeks later, a new update may fix the problem.
Such at any rate was my experience during my first months of using a
windows machine.
William Hyde
|
| |
GENERAL HAIG
> Are you being deliberately obtuse or is my point so profound, shocking &
> unthinkable as not to have occurred to you? Namely, why should Haig seek
> to curtail what effectively was the culling of a generation of those
> young males most likely influenced by international political upheaval
> to the detriment of the class he represented (ie the ruling class)? Or,
> are you so naive you consider Gen. Haig some sort of benign, cuddly,
> Baden-Powellish, father figure?.. -- Nobody
WWI wiped out entire colleges of the Oxbridge
crowd, which at the start and far into the war were
absolutely loyal. The percentage rate of attrition for
those upper class types was higher than for the lower
classes. Once again, a great memoir to read for what
happened to higher society is Vera Brittain's
"Testament of Youth."
For our anonymouse, you might try C. S.
Forrester's "The General" for an understanding of
Douglas Haig. Yes, by the author of the Hornblower
books -- and a serious novel by any standards. For a
defense of the hideous Haig, you won't do better than
John Buchan's four volume history of WWI (not his
Nelson's War series of about 26 volumes, if memory
serves). It hurts to bring up Buchan, whom one cannot
help to admire in many ways for his 190 or so IQ and
ceaseless Presbyterian industry. But he had the class
solidarity with his level of society when the going
was toughest.
There is an essay on Buchan in The New
Criterion. It is very well done and can be found
somewhere on the Internet. His student career at
Oxford defies explanation for its sheer brilliance.
He was possibly the greatest of the late Victorian and
Edwardian geniuses. He died in 1940, while serving as
Governor General of Canada.
Readers of this forum may remember him as the author
of The 39 Steps, which Alfred Hitchcock made into a
famous film. It is about the least of his novels. For aspiring
minds, I recommend Greenmantle as a starting point. A bio
he wrote of Montrose is very good.
Yours, Larry Parr
nobody wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> DELIBERATELY OBTUSE?..
>
> > Concerning the rest of the idiotic chatter,
> > General Haig, if he had been concerned about the
> > Marxists and the like, would have favored stopping the
> > war as did Lord Lansdowne. Leftish writers such as
> > H.G. Wells screamed that Lansdowne was more
> > concerned about social revolution than the Huns. (L. Parr)
>
> Dear Mr. Parr,
>
> Are you being deliberately obtuse or is my point so profound, shocking &
> unthinkable as not to have occurred to you? Namely, why should Haig seek
> to curtail what effectively was the culling of a generation of those
> young males most likely influenced by international political upheaval
> to the detriment of the class he represented (ie the ruling class)? Or,
> are you so naive you consider Gen. Haig some sort of benign, cuddly,
> Baden-Powellish, father figure?..
|
| | |
Date: 30 May 2008 10:10:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GENERAL HAIG
> For our anonymouse, you might try C. S.
> Forrester's "The General" for an understanding of
> Douglas Haig. Yes, by the author of the Hornblower
> books -- and a serious novel by any standards. For a
> defense of the hideous Haig, you won't do better than
> John Buchan's four volume history of WWI (not his
> Nelson's War series of about 26 volumes, if memory
> serves). It hurts to bring up Buchan, whom one cannot
> help to admire in many ways for his 190 or so IQ and
> ceaseless Presbyterian industry. But he had the class
> solidarity with his level of society when the going
> was toughest.
>
> There is an essay on Buchan in The New
> Criterion. It is very well done and can be found
> somewhere on the Internet. His student career at
> Oxford defies explanation for its sheer brilliance.
> He was possibly the greatest of the late Victorian and
> Edwardian geniuses. He died in 1940, while serving as
> Governor General of Canada.
There is also an essay by Buchan on Haig, in Pilgrim's Way. Another note
below.
> Readers of this forum may remember him as the author
> of The 39 Steps, which Alfred Hitchcock made into a
> famous film. It is about the least of his novels. For aspiring
> minds, I recommend Greenmantle as a starting point. A bio
> he wrote of Montrose is very good.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
> nobody wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> DELIBERATELY OBTUSE?..
>>
>> > Concerning the rest of the idiotic chatter,
>> > General Haig, if he had been concerned about the
>> > Marxists and the like, would have favored stopping the
>> > war as did Lord Lansdowne. Leftish writers such as
>> > H.G. Wells screamed that Lansdowne was more
>> > concerned about social revolution than the Huns. (L. Parr)
Latterly the unlikely couplet of Churchill and Eric Blair had the same
concern after WWII. But I see there is one other thing to say...
>> Dear Mr. Parr,
>>
>> Are you being deliberately obtuse or is my point so profound, shocking &
>> unthinkable as not to have occurred to you? Namely, why should Haig seek
>> to curtail what effectively was the culling of a generation of those
>> young males most likely influenced by international political upheaval
>> to the detriment of the class he represented (ie the ruling class)? Or,
>> are you so naive you consider Gen. Haig some sort of benign, cuddly,
>> Baden-Powellish, father figure?..
Pete Hamil writing on New York newspapers mentions articles 'by' Marx
appearing in major print vehicles in the New York, albeit, he says, Engels
probably wrote it all.
While most NY papers were very conservative politically, Pulitzer was the
first active liberal voice, and encouraged what was then 'an international
movement.'
To directly address the sentiment above by /nobody/, what both left and
right had to fear was amply demonstrated by Blair's [Orwell] report on the
Spanish civil war ~ and there we see Conservatives and Liberals occupying
some middle ground, surrounded by both reactionary and revolutionary
elements ~ and THOSE people continued to demonstrate the real killer
philosophies, whether you count the reactionary German, or the revolutionary
Soviet version of fascism.
Should /nobody/ resent Haig for resisting German Imperialism, then /nobody/
should also resent Blair/Orwell who clearly saw that unless a battle was
fought, then these forces would completely extinguish Western Culture among
the established and emerging democratic nations. And like Churchill, he
thought they needed absolute resistance.
It is naive to think that only working class people were killed in the Great
War [or in any war], and in proportion to their respective class sizes,
actually the middle and upper classes did more of the dying, so that other
people could continue to do the living.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2008 10:44:19
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
Chess One wrote:
> Should /nobody/ resent Haig for resisting German Imperialism,..
I'm not about to resent Haig for anything at all. To me he's just a
classic _booby_ type (see; W. Thackeray - Vanity Fair) who unfortunately
in real life, had the fate of millions of souls, for which I suspect he
cared not one iota, in his thick-fingered & butchery mits..
> then /nobody/
> should also resent Blair/Orwell who clearly saw that unless a battle was
> fought, then these forces would completely extinguish Western Culture among
> the established and emerging democratic nations. And like Churchill, he
> thought they needed absolute resistance.
I don't think G. Orwell & D. Haig are really of the same ilk - do you?
Also, German Imperialism & that particularly virulent strain of European
fascism - nazism, aren't the same things either. They both needed to be
resisted & the latter extinguished. Sadly, they - the nazis, the
fanatics (swastika'd soccer hooligans, jackbooted highway cops,
overzealous deckchair attendants etc.) are, like some noxious
vegetation, still very much with us today. The difference is _we_ do
know about them now..
> It is naive to think that only working class people were killed in the Great
> War [or in any war],
It's not only 'naive' it's also somewhat unrealistic, but look, Parr did
this proportional 'thing' too? - So, if you take a random 100 from the
WW1 all killed, I'm figuring: 75% = working class 20% = middle class &
the remaining 5% = the upper-upper, so proportionally it's clear from my
random 100 (we are talking human lives here) who did most of the dying.
This ties in with my observation that it's much more 'attractive' to
some, to talk of whole Oxbridge colleges being wiped out (Parr) rather
than, repeated over & over again, whole villages of cider-quaffing
farm-workers..
nobody.
> and in proportion to their respective class sizes,
> actually the middle and upper classes did more of the dying, so that other
> people could continue to do the living.
>
> Phil Innes
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Jun 2008 21:38:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
"nobody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> Should /nobody/ resent Haig for resisting German Imperialism,..
>
> I'm not about to resent Haig for anything at all. To me he's just a
> classic _booby_ type (see; W. Thackeray - Vanity Fair) who unfortunately
> in real life, had the fate of millions of souls, for which I suspect he
> cared not one iota, in his thick-fingered & butchery mits..
>
>> then /nobody/
>> should also resent Blair/Orwell who clearly saw that unless a battle was
>> fought, then these forces would completely extinguish Western Culture
>> among
>> the established and emerging democratic nations. And like Churchill, he
>> thought they needed absolute resistance.
>
> I don't think G. Orwell & D. Haig are really of the same ilk - do you?
No, not ilk. Other. They were non-fascists, in the age of dictators.
> Also, German Imperialism & that particularly virulent strain of European
> fascism - nazism, aren't the same things either. They both needed to be
> resisted & the latter extinguished. Sadly, they - the nazis, the
> fanatics (swastika'd soccer hooligans, jackbooted highway cops,
> overzealous deckchair attendants etc.)
and ordinary people - poor people without much to believe in, or hope for,
but a dream of greatness, a somewhat sophisticated dream...
> are, like some noxious
> vegetation, still very much with us today. The difference is _we_ do
> know about them now..
what has knowledge of the intellectual kind to do with what people do at the
test?
>> It is naive to think that only working class people were killed in the
>> Great
>> War [or in any war],
>
> It's not only 'naive' it's also somewhat unrealistic, but look, Parr did
> this proportional 'thing' too? - So, if you take a random 100 from the
> WW1 all killed, I'm figuring: 75% = working class 20% = middle class &
> the remaining 5% = the upper-upper, so proportionally it's clear from my
> random 100
you create these numbers to your own satisfaction? as proportion of British
class casualties, I think there is very even distribution of such a gory
statistic
> (we are talking human lives here) who did most of the dying.
> This ties in with my observation that it's much more 'attractive' to
> some, to talk of whole Oxbridge colleges being wiped out (Parr) rather
> than, repeated over & over again, whole villages of cider-quaffing
> farm-workers..
i think there is no macabre satisfaction at all. there are only the brutal
facts of it, often too ugly to consider. you must be careful you do not
create some antithesis to what you believe others to be, and react to that,
rather than 'the position on the board.'
western civilisation was in a fight for its life, and barely squeaked
through, though i think all played their part
that is the debt that is owned the dead
someone - my favorite philospher - dr jacob needleman, was walking by the
vietnam memorial in dc and he said that it occured to him as he went down
and down into the only horizontal and non-triumphal memorial in the states,
that it was not as much he who regarded the dead, but the dead who asked of
him what he was making of his life and liberty, for which they had given
theirs
there is no class in that, no internal warring of factions, there is human
life relating to others
that is one lesson from all such striving, and if no one ever shot at you,
brother, do not speculate in the face of those who have been there, or whose
names are now on some wall
it is not your question to ask - it is theirs
cordially, phil innes
> nobody.
>
>
>> and in proportion to their respective class sizes,
>> actually the middle and upper classes did more of the dying, so that
>> other
>> people could continue to do the living.
>>
>> Phil Innes
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2008 06:28:06
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
Chess One wrote:
> what has knowledge of the intellectual kind to do with what people do at the
> test?
Intelligence coupled with a bit of heart & soul is a much better
combination than mere brute force thuggery - no?..
> >> It is naive to think that only working class people were killed in the
> >> Great
> >> War [or in any war],
> >
> > It's not only 'naive' it's also somewhat unrealistic, but look, Parr did
> > this proportional 'thing' too? - So, if you take a random 100 from the
> > WW1 all killed, I'm figuring: 75% = working class 20% = middle class &
> > the remaining 5% = the upper-upper, so proportionally it's clear from my
> > random 100
>
> you create these numbers to your own satisfaction?
Yep, 'though I don't know that 'satisfaction' is quite the right word
here. You cavil @ my breakdown of a random 100 then?..
> as proportion of British
> class casualties, I think there is very even distribution of such a gory
> statistic
This is no doubt true but is an entirely different proportion..
> > (we are talking human lives here) who did most of the dying.
> > This ties in with my observation that it's much more 'attractive' to
> > some, to talk of whole Oxbridge colleges being wiped out (Parr) rather
> > than, repeated over & over again, whole villages of cider-quaffing
> > farm-workers..
> i think there is no macabre satisfaction at all. there are only the brutal
> facts of it, often too ugly to consider.
No! nothing morbid here just, since I was a young fella, a fascination
with the filmed record of such conflict. WW1 sort of marked the
beginning of this & no, there really were'nt enough Victoria Crosses to
go round..
> you must be careful you do not
> create some antithesis to what you believe others to be, and react to that,
> rather than 'the position on the board.'
Not sure what 'board position' you have in mind here father Phil, but if
you're alluding to the perception that 'them that hates enough become
like the hated' - point taken..
> western civilisation was in a fight for its life, and barely squeaked
> through, though i think all played their part
It's often talked about 'what a close run thing' these major
conflagrations were in the last century & there seem to be an infinity
of 'what ifs' bandied about but complacent hindsight might suggest
otherwise. Britain in 1914 for example still had it's Empire & weren't
exactly a pushover. Similarly, the Allies in '39 - '45 had resources &
short of Germany getting 'the' bomb they were busted yet again. Japan
taking on the mighty USA?? Well, if ever there was an example of the
folly of delusion that was it..
>
> that is the debt that is owned the dead
>
> someone - my favorite philospher - dr jacob needleman, was walking by the
> vietnam memorial in dc and he said that it occured to him as he went down
> and down into the only horizontal and non-triumphal memorial in the states,
> that it was not as much he who regarded the dead, but the dead who asked of
> him what he was making of his life and liberty, for which they had given
> theirs
>
> there is no class in that, no internal warring of factions, there is human
> life relating to others
>
> that is one lesson from all such striving, and if no one ever shot at you,
> brother, do not speculate in the face of those who have been there, or whose
> names are now on some wall
Speculate? who's ferkin speculating?. Next time I'm in Europe I'm going
to make a point of attending one of those graveyards to the war dead,
the poignancy, the tranquility, the contemplation - strangely
uplifting..
nobody.
>
> it is not your question to ask - it is theirs
>
> cordially, phil innes
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Jun 2008 19:10:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
"nobody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>
>
>> what has knowledge of the intellectual kind to do with what people do at
>> the
>> test?
>
> Intelligence coupled with a bit of heart & soul is a much better
> combination than mere brute force thuggery - no?..
Is it? By what measure of circumstance? But non intellectualism is no
equivalent of thuggery. That is some Lockian prescription against what is of
Rousseau. True, it is a dominant idea in practice, but the dominance is
itself a forced act.
The question is not even of an intellectual kind, but about our observations
of ourselves. Did you get tested beyond your comfort zone so as to speak so
surely?
>> >> It is naive to think that only working class people were killed in the
>> >> Great
>> >> War [or in any war],
>> >
>> > It's not only 'naive' it's also somewhat unrealistic, but look, Parr
>> > did
>> > this proportional 'thing' too? - So, if you take a random 100 from the
>> > WW1 all killed, I'm figuring: 75% = working class 20% = middle class &
>> > the remaining 5% = the upper-upper, so proportionally it's clear from
>> > my
>> > random 100
>>
>> you create these numbers to your own satisfaction?
>
> Yep, 'though I don't know that 'satisfaction' is quite the right word
> here.
Yet you choose it for your own purpose.
> You cavil @ my breakdown of a random 100 then?..
I ask you where you got them. You obfusticate with your answer. So... you
made them up to your own satisfaction, to suit suit your purpose.
>> as proportion of British
>> class casualties, I think there is very even distribution of such a gory
>> statistic
>
> This is no doubt true but is an entirely different proportion..
Different than - proportion of what?
>> > (we are talking human lives here) who did most of the dying.
>> > This ties in with my observation that it's much more 'attractive' to
>> > some, to talk of whole Oxbridge colleges being wiped out (Parr) rather
>> > than, repeated over & over again, whole villages of cider-quaffing
>> > farm-workers..
>
>> i think there is no macabre satisfaction at all. there are only the
>> brutal
>> facts of it, often too ugly to consider.
>
> No! nothing morbid here just, since I was a young fella, a fascination
> with the filmed record of such conflict.
You gained your knowledge from the movies?
> WW1 sort of marked the
> beginning of this & no, there really were'nt enough Victoria Crosses to
> go round..
>
>> you must be careful you do not
>> create some antithesis to what you believe others to be, and react to
>> that,
>> rather than 'the position on the board.'
>
> Not sure what 'board position' you have in mind here father Phil, but if
> you're alluding to the perception that 'them that hates enough become
> like the hated' - point taken..
You make yourself an opponent to rail against. Whether that person is truly
like that or a phantom of your imagination, is to the point. You need an
antagonist, real or imagined, to make contrarian argument. This is of course
reactionary, normal, and unhealthy to any sense of seeing for yourself how
anything is.
>> western civilisation was in a fight for its life, and barely squeaked
>> through, though i think all played their part
>
> It's often talked about 'what a close run thing' these major
> conflagrations were in the last century & there seem to be an infinity
> of 'what ifs' bandied about but complacent hindsight might suggest
> otherwise. Britain in 1914 for example still had it's Empire & weren't
> exactly a pushover. Similarly, the Allies in '39 - '45 had resources &
> short of Germany getting 'the' bomb they were busted yet again. Japan
> taking on the mighty USA?? Well, if ever there was an example of the
> folly of delusion that was it..
But America was really a sleeping giant, and without America all the
European democracies would have toppled to the fascists - then America too -
only extraordinary efforts brought the US into the war and such light as was
not extinguished. Japan's attack on the US changed all, but that is the
mistake of the enemy, not the wisdom of the allies!
>>
>> that is the debt that is owned the dead
>>
>> someone - my favorite philospher - dr jacob needleman, was walking by the
>> vietnam memorial in dc and he said that it occured to him as he went down
>> and down into the only horizontal and non-triumphal memorial in the
>> states,
>> that it was not as much he who regarded the dead, but the dead who asked
>> of
>> him what he was making of his life and liberty, for which they had given
>> theirs
>>
>> there is no class in that, no internal warring of factions, there is
>> human
>> life relating to others
>>
>> that is one lesson from all such striving, and if no one ever shot at
>> you,
>> brother, do not speculate in the face of those who have been there, or
>> whose
>> names are now on some wall
>
> Speculate? who's ferkin speculating?.
I don't know. You do not use personal pronouns, do not claim experience, and
hypothesise with ideas. So... sounds like you are.
> Next time I'm in Europe I'm going
> to make a point of attending one of those graveyards to the war dead,
> the poignancy, the tranquility, the contemplation - strangely
> uplifting..
Will it be, or is that another idea? A romance?
Placidaque ibi demum morte quievit. (And there, at length, he reposed in
tranquil death) - Vergel.
Phil Innes
> nobody.
>
>>
>> it is not your question to ask - it is theirs
>>
>> cordially, phil innes
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2008 13:22:30
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
Chess One wrote:
>
> "nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Chess One wrote:
> >
> >
> >> what has knowledge of the intellectual kind to do with what people do at
> >> the
> >> test?
> >
> > Intelligence coupled with a bit of heart & soul is a much better
> > combination than mere brute force thuggery - no?..
>
> Is it?
Well, I think it is - don't you? If we go back to the caves, it can be
seen that Neanderthals (the strength of 10 apes) were gradually
supplanted by the much more puny Homo Sapius (typically, blond,
blue-eyed & bespectacled). There was a bit of interbreeding because some
of the former chicks were pretty cute, but for our purposes Neanderthal
man became extinct, ie - were wiped out..
> By what measure of circumstance?
See above..
> But non intellectualism is no
> equivalent of thuggery.
Did I imply this? I'm sorry, you've misunderstood my meaning, actually
Neanderthal's skull size is larger than the average homo-sapian so, a
conundrum - no?..
> That is some Lockian prescription against what is of
> Rousseau. True, it is a dominant idea in practice, but the dominance is
> itself a forced act.
Perhaps? but for the sake of clarity, you'd need to expound more fully
here - Phillip..
>
> The question is not even of an intellectual kind, but about our observations
> of ourselves. Did you get tested beyond your comfort zone so as to speak so
> surely?
Would you prefer a more timid tone? or maybe not at all? & no, I never
did get to scale Ben Nevis, 'they' do do helicopter excursions nowadays
for them that must get to the top, sacrilege - I know..
.
> >> > So, if you take a random 100 from the
> >> > WW1 all killed, I'm figuring: 75% = working class 20% = middle class &
> >> > the remaining 5% = the upper-upper, so proportionally it's clear from
> >> > my
> >> > random 100
> >>
> >> you create these numbers to your own satisfaction?
> >
> > Yep, 'though I don't know that 'satisfaction' is quite the right word
> > here.
> Yet you choose it for your own purpose.
You introduced the word "satisfaction" Phil..
> > You cavil @ my breakdown of a random 100 then?..
> I ask you where you got them. You obfusticate with your answer. So... you
> made them up to your own satisfaction, to suit suit your purpose.
Where does this er 'bath-house' speak come from "obfusticate" really? &
you a married man Phil - tsk, tsk..
>
> >> as proportion of British
> >> class casualties, I think there is very even distribution of such a gory
> >> statistic
> >
> > This is no doubt true but is an entirely different proportion..
> Different than - proportion of what?
My breakdown of a random 100 - the leaves on my tree are green Phil..
.
> >> i think there is no macabre satisfaction at all. there are only the
> >> brutal
> >> facts of it, often too ugly to consider.
> > No! nothing morbid here just, since I was a young fella, a fascination
> > with the filmed record of such conflict.
> You gained your knowledge from the movies?
No, not exactly. As I mentioned before, WW1 marked for me the beginning
of a photographic record & yes 'filmed' record too, of World conflict -
that's all..
> >> you must be careful you do not
> >> create some antithesis to what you believe others to be, and react to
> >> that,
> >> rather than 'the position on the board.'
> > Not sure what 'board position' you have in mind here father Phil, but if
> > you're alluding to the perception that 'them that hates enough become
> > like the hated' - point taken..
> You make yourself an opponent to rail against. Whether that person is truly
> like that or a phantom of your imagination, is to the point. You need an
> antagonist, real or imagined, to make contrarian argument. This is of course
> reactionary, normal, and unhealthy to any sense of seeing for yourself how
> anything is.
"Ares - curse of mankind". (The Illiad) Homer..
> >> western civilisation was in a fight for its life, and barely squeaked
> >> through, though i think all played their part
> > It's often talked about 'what a close run thing' these major
> > conflagrations were in the last century & there seem to be an infinity
> > of 'what ifs' bandied about but complacent hindsight might suggest
> > otherwise. Britain in 1914 for example still had it's Empire & weren't
> > exactly a pushover. Similarly, the Allies in '39 - '45 had resources &
> > short of Germany getting 'the' bomb they were busted yet again. Japan
> > taking on the mighty USA?? Well, if ever there was an example of the
> > folly of delusion that was it..
> But America was really a sleeping giant, and without America all the
> European democracies would have toppled to the fascists - then America too -
> only extraordinary efforts brought the US into the war and such light as was
> not extinguished. Japan's attack on the US changed all, but that is the
> mistake of the enemy, not the wisdom of the allies!
Wot about the Russians? don't forget the Russians!..
> >> that is the debt that is owned the dead
> >>
> >> someone - my favorite philospher - dr jacob needleman, was walking by the
> >> vietnam memorial in dc and he said that it occured to him as he went down
> >> and down into the only horizontal and non-triumphal memorial in the
> >> states,
> >> that it was not as much he who regarded the dead, but the dead who asked
> >> of
> >> him what he was making of his life and liberty, for which they had given
> >> theirs
> >>
> >> there is no class in that, no internal warring of factions, there is
> >> human
> >> life relating to others
> >>
> >> that is one lesson from all such striving, and if no one ever shot at
> >> you,
> >> brother, do not speculate in the face of those who have been there, or
> >> whose
> >> names are now on some wall
> > Speculate? who's ferkin speculating?.
> I don't know. You do not use personal pronouns, do not claim experience, and
> hypothesise with ideas. So... sounds like you are.
"You don't know"? So which is it? You don't know or you figure I'm not
demonstrating due respect? or is it somewhere in between? - Let me
know..
> > Next time I'm in Europe I'm going
> > to make a point of attending one of those graveyards to the war dead,
> > the poignancy, the tranquility, the contemplation - strangely
> > uplifting..
> Will it be, or is that another idea? A romance?
Who can say - God willing..
nobody.
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2008 01:14:11
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
[email protected] wrote:
DELIBERATELY OBTUSE?..
> Concerning the rest of the idiotic chatter,
> General Haig, if he had been concerned about the
> Marxists and the like, would have favored stopping the
> war as did Lord Lansdowne. Leftish writers such as
> H.G. Wells screamed that Lansdowne was more
> concerned about social revolution than the Huns. (L. Parr)
Dear Mr. Parr,
Are you being deliberately obtuse or is my point so profound, shocking &
unthinkable as not to have occurred to you? Namely, why should Haig seek
to curtail what effectively was the culling of a generation of those
young males most likely influenced by international political upheaval
to the detriment of the class he represented (ie the ruling class)? Or,
are you so naive you consider Gen. Haig some sort of benign, cuddly,
Baden-Powellish, father figure?..
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2008 00:07:42
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
help bot wrote:
>
> On May 27, 8:40 pm, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > You have no idea just how lucky you are. Those of
> > > us who lived through the Great War -- like Larry Parr
> > > and myself...
>
> > & me too - After being ordered 'oer the top (1st Somme, Aug. 1916) me &
> > the lads ran into a wall of Jerman, Maxim, machine-gun bullets. My guts
> > disengaged from me bowels & I lay there quite dead.
>
> Well, if you can't see a spray of .50 caliber bullets
Actually, they were 7.92mm HE rounds the filthy bosch were using in
defiance of the Hague Convention -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92x57mm_Mauser & I did say a "wall" of
them - helpnot..
> coming at you and duck, you probably should not
> have been assigned trench duty.
Y'know, you're right. My first thought on seeing the stinky,
rat-infested, trench, was - 'nobody', you have been badly miscast here..
> As an F-16 fighter
> pilot you would be strapped in, and all you have to
> do is strafe the biplanes and avoid hitting them as
> they fall to earth; the feeling is that they are fixed--
> or just barely moving, at best. The truth is, it's very
> difficult to fly s-lo-w enough...
You just have to fly as _fast_ as possible, they won't hear you coming &
the turbulence will pop their wing stays & shred the canvas causing them
to fall out of the sky. You'll save on tomahawks & cruise missiles &
when H. Goering, in desperation manages to kamikaze his distinctive red
Fokker triplane into your F-16 you simply press the eject-button &
parachute safely down behind adoring Canadian lines..
>to see the targets
> clearly; you have to stay under, say, mach 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All the apologists say things like that;
No they don't..
> the fact
> remains that if someone really, truly is against,
> say, Mr. Marx or Mr. Trotsky..
When Marx was alive 1% owned & controlled 99% of Russia's land & wealth
& people like Trotsky, Lenin & plenty others were intent on changing
that dynamic. Bit like what happened in France 100 odd years previous &
another 100 odd years previous in England. Can't see what's so hard to
fathom in people doing something to even things up a bit. Lumping a
hippy ratbag & psychopathic nutcase in with these dudes is just plain
silly - you were being silly - right?..
> or even Charles
> Manson, the solution is simple enough: you
> terminate him.
Erk - you sound like a dalek. Didn't do to well with Fidel - no? Now,
that Mugabe fellow is one pigeon I'd like to see fall of his roost. And
I suppose Stalin did get to Trotsky in the end but he was vulnerable &
in a foreign land - see the difference?..
> You don't go and start a bunch
> of wars in order to take out one guy-- that's just
> poor marksmanship. It reminds me of the Ad
> Hoministas, who often as not, target entire
> countries, states, or regions in order to get a
> single, ineffectual "hit" on just one critic! As
> one fellow used to say, they're not the sharpest
> pens in the box... .
Yeah, some chap was going on about being a sandwich short of a picnic..
nobody.
|
| |
I AM DEEPLY WOUNDED
< Alright, I will sit back down in the peanut gallery now.
I never had the time to study WWI in the past. > -- (JDW)
<You have no idea just how lucky you are. Those of
us who lived through the Great War -- like Larry
Parr and myself... > -- Greg Kennedy (help bot)
As Greg Kennedy put the matter, "like Larry Parr
and myself." The man has finally drawn blood. I am
deeply wounded.
And, to be sure, there is no "Alright."
Concerning the rest of the idiotic chatter,
General Haig, if he had been concerned about the
Marxists and the like, would have favored stopping the
war as did Lord Lansdowne. Leftish writers such as
H.G. Wells screamed that Lansdowne was more
concerned about social revolution than the Huns.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
> On May 27, 4:45 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the information. I realize other things are going to be
> > discussed, but I thought perhaps I could nudge the discussion just a bit
> > towards some of the chess aspects also.
> >
> > Alright, I will sit back down in the peanut gallery now. I never had
> > the time to study WWI in the past.
>
> You have no idea just how lucky you are. Those of
> us who lived through the Great War -- like Larry Parr
> and myself -- are still haunted by images of trench
> warfare (you're better off not knowing much about
> that) and machine-gun fire "mowing down" men like
> so much overgrown grass. Trust me when I say that
> the modern methods of killing and maiming people
> are much superior, apart from a few minor
> exceptions like, say, agent orange.
>
> Oh well, back to the hypothetical outcomes and
> how the world might look. You do realize that even
> today, with powerful computer models, the experts
> cannot reliably predict the weather; obviously, the
> potential outcomes of different scenarios in the
> Great War are far more complex than that... .
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2008 22:43:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On May 28, 12:16 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> SPONTANEOUS REPAIR?
>
> I wrote incorrectly that my computer email had
> been repaired. So far as I can determine, it repaired
> itself. Is there such a thing as spontaneous computer
> tissue repair?
>
> Several of you are computer mavens. Let me
> describe what happened.
>
> A couple of weeks back or so, the texts on my
> computer screen were wiped out for both incoming
> messages and everything in the various boxes. The
> address headers remained, so I knew who was sending
> me messages.
>
> I could also send out messages, though not
> easily. I could not make attachments, and I could not
> send return messages or forward anything. I could
> only hit the compose button and send out a message.
>
> Then, yesterday, everything was okay. The
> fellow who was going to fix the computer never showed
> up (death in the family) over the last several days.
> So nothing by way of repair was done.
>
> Any idea what happened?
It sounds like LP might have a problem known
as "Microsoft Windows".
On my computer, sometimes I cannot type an
apostrophe without the browser commandeering
my machine, opening a pop-up box into which I
am presumably to type something. But I never
selected this option, nor had any opportunity to
un-select it. The next day the problem might go
away on its own, but it always returns, sooner
or later. There are also occasional bog-downs
where my machine gets really slow for no
apparent reason-- quite unresponsive for a time
only to, once again, apparently fix itself.
Maybe Bill Gates was right after all; maybe
there really is no advantage to a graphical
user interface... .
-- help bot
|
| |
SPONTANEOUS REPAIR?
I wrote incorrectly that my computer email had
been repaired. So far as I can determine, it repaired
itself. Is there such a thing as spontaneous computer
tissue repair?
Several of you are computer mavens. Let me
describe what happened.
A couple of weeks back or so, the texts on my
computer screen were wiped out for both incoming
messages and everything in the various boxes. The
address headers remained, so I knew who was sending
me messages.
I could also send out messages, though not
easily. I could not make attachments, and I could not
send return messages or forward anything. I could
only hit the compose button and send out a message.
Then, yesterday, everything was okay. The
fellow who was going to fix the computer never showed
up (death in the family) over the last several days.
So nothing by way of repair was done.
Any idea what happened?
Yours, Larry Parr
J.D. Walker wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On May 27, 1:30 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ah! Excellent. I would much rather read about WWI and possibly how it
> >> impacted leading players of the day than say GetClub. Did we lose any
> >> very promising talents in combat? Were any celebrated military minds
> >> also good chess players?
> >
> > The discussion Parr and I were having about WW I does not deal with
> > such questions, but I'll be happy to give a few answers to your
> > questions.
> > I am not aware of any really prominent or promising chess masters of
> > that time who died in combat, though likely some did. Of those I know
> > about, Friedrich S?misch came closest to death, when he was seriously
> > wounded at the Battle of Verdun while serving in the German Army in
> > 1916. He might have died had not a chess-playing surgeon recognized
> > him and seen to his immediate care. He was left with a crippled hand
> > and scars on his body.
> > I don't think Alekhine formally enlisted in the Russian Army. He was
> > interned by the Germans in August 1914, when the outbreak of
> > hostilities terminated the Mannheim tournament. In September, though,
> > he was released because he was considered medically unfit for military
> > service. But he did serve with a Red Cross hospital unit in Russia in
> > 1916. This was near the front, and Alekhine twice was incapacitated by
> > shell shock.
> > One of the best players of the time was an indirect casualty of the
> > war: Carl Schlechter died of starvation in Budapest in 1918, wartime
> > disruption having made food scarce.
> > Two prominent masters were strongly affected by the war. It
> > intensified Akiba Rubinstein's psychological problems, and he was not
> > quite the same player as before the war. Post-war hardship and
> > psychological depression were at least partially responsible for
> > Lasker's poor showing in his 1921 match with Capablanca, but he did
> > recover by 1923.
> > The Czech master Karel Treybal had an interesting adventure during
> > the war. I do not recall the details well, but IIRC his outfit ended
> > up deep in Russia, and for some reason it was decided not to return
> > the way they came, but to march all the way to Vladivostock on the
> > Pacific coast, and sail back to Europe.
> > German master Siegbert Tarrasch lost a son in the war. Rudolf
> > Spielmann served in the Austro-Hungarian Army.
> > That's about all the WWI-related chess stuff I know off the top of
> > my head.
>
> Taylor,
>
> Thanks for the information. I realize other things are going to be
> discussed, but I thought perhaps I could nudge the discussion just a bit
> towards some of the chess aspects also.
>
> Alright, I will sit back down in the peanut gallery now. I never had
> the time to study WWI in the past.
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| | |
Date: 28 May 2008 10:10:39
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:16:41 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>SPONTANEOUS REPAIR?
>
> I wrote incorrectly that my computer email had
>been repaired. So far as I can determine, it repaired
>itself. Is there such a thing as spontaneous computer
>tissue repair?
>
> Several of you are computer mavens. Let me
>describe what happened.
>
> A couple of weeks back or so, the texts on my
>computer screen were wiped out for both incoming
>messages and everything in the various boxes. The
>address headers remained, so I knew who was sending
>me messages.
>
> I could also send out messages, though not
>easily. I could not make attachments, and I could not
>send return messages or forward anything. I could
>only hit the compose button and send out a message.
>
> Then, yesterday, everything was okay. The
>
>fellow who was going to fix the computer never showed
>up (death in the family) over the last several days.
>So nothing by way of repair was done.
>
> Any idea what happened?
>
>Yours, Larry Parr
Did the mysterious problems persist through a cold reboot of the
computer?
|
| | |
Date: 28 May 2008 13:40:10
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> SPONTANEOUS REPAIR?
>
> I wrote incorrectly that my computer email had
> been repaired. So far as I can determine, it repaired
> itself. Is there such a thing as spontaneous computer
> tissue repair?
>
> Several of you are computer mavens. Let me
> describe what happened.
If you want anybody to help you, you should,
at minimum, reveal which OS you are running, which
email program, which news reader etc.
The problem is not a hardware malfunction.
>
> A couple of weeks back or so, the texts on my
> computer screen were wiped out for both incoming
> messages and everything in the various boxes. The
> address headers remained, so I knew who was sending
> me messages.
Most likely the traffic coming and going from your machine
is being monitored and the tap was done
amateurishly.
>
> I could also send out messages, though not
> easily. I could not make attachments, and I could not
> send return messages or forward anything. I could
> only hit the compose button and send out a message.
>
> Then, yesterday, everything was okay. The
I would guess that, having read your messages complaining
about the problems, your supervisors realized that the tap
had to be fixed and they now took care of that.
It is also possible that there is a global policy on filtering
information in Malaysia and they had some problems
setting this up; i.e. it isn't your correspondence
that is being targeted specifically.
>
> fellow who was going to fix the computer never showed
> up (death in the family) over the last several days.
> So nothing by way of repair was done.
>
> Any idea what happened?
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2008 20:19:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On May 27, 8:40 pm, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
> > You have no idea just how lucky you are. Those of
> > us who lived through the Great War -- like Larry Parr
> > and myself...
> & me too - After being ordered 'oer the top (1st Somme, Aug. 1916) me &
> the lads ran into a wall of Jerman, Maxim, machine-gun bullets. My guts
> disengaged from me bowels & I lay there quite dead.
Well, if you can't see a spray of .50 caliber bullets
coming at you and duck, you probably should not
have been assigned trench duty. As an F-16 fighter
pilot you would be strapped in, and all you have to
do is strafe the biplanes and avoid hitting them as
they fall to earth; the feeling is that they are fixed--
or just barely moving, at best. The truth is, it's very
difficult to fly s-lo-w enough to see the targets
clearly; you have to stay under, say, mach 2.
> While going through
> the reincarnation process I met up with Franz Marc, another casualty of
> the Great Human Cull -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Marc& we
> agreed that Gen. Haig was a concerned member of the Upper-Class,
> increasingly worried @ the influence of Marxian ideas @ the
> revolutionary activities of L. Trotsky & others of his ilk
All the apologists say things like that; the fact
remains that if someone really, truly is against,
say, Mr. Marx or Mr. Trotsky or even Charles
Manson, the solution is simple enough: you
terminate him. You don't go and start a bunch
of wars in order to take out one guy-- that's just
poor marksmanship. It reminds me of the Ad
Hoministas, who often as not, target entire
countries, states, or regions in order to get a
single, ineffectual "hit" on just one critic! As
one fellow used to say, they're not the sharpest
pens in the box... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2008 10:40:58
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
help bot wrote:
> > Alright, I will sit back down in the peanut gallery now. I never had
> > the time to study WWI in the past. <JDW>..
>
> You have no idea just how lucky you are. Those of
> us who lived through the Great War -- like Larry Parr
> and myself...
& me too - After being ordered 'oer the top (1st Somme, Aug. 1916) me &
the lads ran into a wall of Jerman, Maxim, machine-gun bullets. My guts
disengaged from me bowels & I lay there quite dead. While going through
the reincarnation process I met up with Franz Marc, another casualty of
the Great Human Cull - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Marc & we
agreed that Gen. Haig was a concerned member of the Upper-Class,
increasingly worried @ the influence of Marxian ideas @ the
revolutionary activities of L. Trotsky & others of his ilk, & that he
was in all probability a mediocre chess-player who's favoured tactic was
a sort of demented, sacrificial pawn-storm..
-- are still haunted by images of trench
> warfare (you're better off not knowing much about
> that) and machine-gun fire "mowing down" men like
> so much overgrown grass. Trust me when I say that
> the modern methods of killing and maiming people
> are much superior, apart from a few minor
> exceptions like, say, agent orange.
>
> Oh well, back to the hypothetical outcomes and
> how the world might look. You do realize that even
> today, with powerful computer models, the experts
> cannot reliably predict the weather; obviously, the
> potential outcomes of different scenarios in the
> Great War are far more complex than that... .
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2008 15:20:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On May 27, 4:45 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Thanks for the information. I realize other things are going to be
> discussed, but I thought perhaps I could nudge the discussion just a bit
> towards some of the chess aspects also.
>
> Alright, I will sit back down in the peanut gallery now. I never had
> the time to study WWI in the past.
You have no idea just how lucky you are. Those of
us who lived through the Great War -- like Larry Parr
and myself -- are still haunted by images of trench
warfare (you're better off not knowing much about
that) and machine-gun fire "mowing down" men like
so much overgrown grass. Trust me when I say that
the modern methods of killing and maiming people
are much superior, apart from a few minor
exceptions like, say, agent orange.
Oh well, back to the hypothetical outcomes and
how the world might look. You do realize that even
today, with powerful computer models, the experts
cannot reliably predict the weather; obviously, the
potential outcomes of different scenarios in the
Great War are far more complex than that... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2008 15:07:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On May 27, 1:30 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ah! Excellent. I would much rather read about WWI and possibly how it
> impacted leading players of the day than say GetClub.
This is a false dilemma; you can have both (or neither).
> Did we lose any very promising talents in combat?
If by "talents" Mr. Walker means chess talents, I have
yet to see any chess-related discussion between the
two hypothetical-Great War commentators. Instead,
the focus, unsurprisingly, seems to be on Nazis,
Commies, and such.
> Were any celebrated military minds also good chess players?
Napolean Bonaparte perhaps, although both I and
Sanny could likely have beaten him like carrots at
chess.
In one of the many newsletters I receive regularly,
there was some discussion about the number of
deaths in various wars which involved the USA
(yes, really). I was a bit surprised at how few men
were killed in some wars, but mainly by the fact
that the Civil War entailed the greatest losses of
them all, and by a wide margin. But alas, there
were no Nazis or Commies in that one, so the
pundits will quite naturally be left speechless as
to the hypothetical possibilities of other outcomes.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2008 13:57:13
From: William Hyde
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On May 27, 4:14 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On May 27, 1:30 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ah! Excellent. I would much rather read about WWI and possibly how it
> > impacted leading players of the day than say GetClub. Did we lose any
> > very promising talents in combat?
> I am not aware of any really prominent or promising chess masters of
> that time who died in combat, though likely some did.
The Berlin champion, Erich Cohn, was killed late in the war. He
was probably not destined for GM status because of ill
health (though why he would be in the army in that case
I don't know, but he enlisted in 1914 according to Marshall)
but he won some strong short events.
There was another Cohn playing about this time, but he
died in 1913.
> German master Siegbert Tarrasch lost a son in the war.
Worse, I believe he lost three sons during the war. Only one
was killed in combat (if I can believe internet sources).
One killed himself, and another died accidentally.
Rudolf
> Spielmann served in the Austro-Hungarian Army.
As did Tartakower, who also served with the free French
in WW II.
Once when I had far too much time on my hands I did a plot
of chess player death dates. There was quite an obvious
peak in the early 1940s, but nothing that significant from
1914-1918, though my data source was not comprehensive.
William Hyde
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2008 13:14:48
From:
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
On May 27, 1:30=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Ah! =A0Excellent. =A0I would much rather read about WWI and possibly how i=
t
> impacted leading players of the day than say GetClub. =A0Did we lose any
> very promising talents in combat? =A0Were any celebrated military minds
> also good chess players?
The discussion Parr and I were having about WW I does not deal with
such questions, but I'll be happy to give a few answers to your
questions.
I am not aware of any really prominent or promising chess masters of
that time who died in combat, though likely some did. Of those I know
about, Friedrich S=E4misch came closest to death, when he was seriously
wounded at the Battle of Verdun while serving in the German Army in
1916. He might have died had not a chess-playing surgeon recognized
him and seen to his immediate care. He was left with a crippled hand
and scars on his body.
I don't think Alekhine formally enlisted in the Russian Army. He was
interned by the Germans in August 1914, when the outbreak of
hostilities terminated the Mannheim tournament. In September, though,
he was released because he was considered medically unfit for military
service. But he did serve with a Red Cross hospital unit in Russia in
1916. This was near the front, and Alekhine twice was incapacitated by
shell shock.
One of the best players of the time was an indirect casualty of the
war: Carl Schlechter died of starvation in Budapest in 1918, wartime
disruption having made food scarce.
Two prominent masters were strongly affected by the war. It
intensified Akiba Rubinstein's psychological problems, and he was not
quite the same player as before the war. Post-war hardship and
psychological depression were at least partially responsible for
Lasker's poor showing in his 1921 match with Capablanca, but he did
recover by 1923.
The Czech master Karel Treybal had an interesting adventure during
the war. I do not recall the details well, but IIRC his outfit ended
up deep in Russia, and for some reason it was decided not to return
the way they came, but to march all the way to Vladivostock on the
Pacific coast, and sail back to Europe.
German master Siegbert Tarrasch lost a son in the war. Rudolf
Spielmann served in the Austro-Hungarian Army.
That's about all the WWI-related chess stuff I know off the top of
my head.
|
| | |
Date: 27 May 2008 13:45:19
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On May 27, 1:30 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ah! Excellent. I would much rather read about WWI and possibly how it
>> impacted leading players of the day than say GetClub. Did we lose any
>> very promising talents in combat? Were any celebrated military minds
>> also good chess players?
>
> The discussion Parr and I were having about WW I does not deal with
> such questions, but I'll be happy to give a few answers to your
> questions.
> I am not aware of any really prominent or promising chess masters of
> that time who died in combat, though likely some did. Of those I know
> about, Friedrich S�misch came closest to death, when he was seriously
> wounded at the Battle of Verdun while serving in the German Army in
> 1916. He might have died had not a chess-playing surgeon recognized
> him and seen to his immediate care. He was left with a crippled hand
> and scars on his body.
> I don't think Alekhine formally enlisted in the Russian Army. He was
> interned by the Germans in August 1914, when the outbreak of
> hostilities terminated the Mannheim tournament. In September, though,
> he was released because he was considered medically unfit for military
> service. But he did serve with a Red Cross hospital unit in Russia in
> 1916. This was near the front, and Alekhine twice was incapacitated by
> shell shock.
> One of the best players of the time was an indirect casualty of the
> war: Carl Schlechter died of starvation in Budapest in 1918, wartime
> disruption having made food scarce.
> Two prominent masters were strongly affected by the war. It
> intensified Akiba Rubinstein's psychological problems, and he was not
> quite the same player as before the war. Post-war hardship and
> psychological depression were at least partially responsible for
> Lasker's poor showing in his 1921 match with Capablanca, but he did
> recover by 1923.
> The Czech master Karel Treybal had an interesting adventure during
> the war. I do not recall the details well, but IIRC his outfit ended
> up deep in Russia, and for some reason it was decided not to return
> the way they came, but to march all the way to Vladivostock on the
> Pacific coast, and sail back to Europe.
> German master Siegbert Tarrasch lost a son in the war. Rudolf
> Spielmann served in the Austro-Hungarian Army.
> That's about all the WWI-related chess stuff I know off the top of
> my head.
Taylor,
Thanks for the information. I realize other things are going to be
discussed, but I thought perhaps I could nudge the discussion just a bit
towards some of the chess aspects also.
Alright, I will sit back down in the peanut gallery now. I never had
the time to study WWI in the past.
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2008 09:33:58
From:
Subject: Off-topic: Discussion of WW I (was: Parr is back online)
|
On May 27, 12:22=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> The computer was repaired and I can now receive messages again.
>
> Would Taylor Kingston be good enough to resend his questions about
> WWI?
Here you are, Larry:
In another thread, Larry Parr put forth opinions
about what effect different outcomes in World War I might have had on
later history. Some of these struck me as plausible, others less so.
They at least stirred up my interest enough to check what relevant
sources I had on hand. Based on that research, but with no pretension
of infallibility, I comment below on some of Parr=92s posts. Where I
question or disagree, my intent is to advance the discussion in a
civil manner, not to belittle Parr. One hopes that if Parr responds,
he will do so in that spirit.
PARR: If the Great War had ended in German victory in 1917, there
would never have been the accumulated mass horrors of Stalinism,
Maoism and Hitlerism. Stalin would have ended up as a zookeeper in
the Central Caucasus, Trotsky a radical editor in NYC and Lenin a
fairly well-off, if frustrated, French tutor for advantaged children
in Zurich.
TK: Some of this seems rather implausible. It=92s very difficult to
analyze how a different WWI outcome would have affected far-off
China,
so I would not feel confident saying anything about Mao. Clearly a
German victory would have precluded Hitler rising to power, at least
in the way the Nazis did, but it=92s hard to see the same applying to
Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.
Firstly, unless we abandon all practical considerations and invoke
some magical means, it=92s almost impossible to conceive of a way for
Germany to win in 1917 without first knocking Russia out of the war.
To this end, they employed the Bolsheviks, financing their activities
and finally shipping Lenin and other exiled revolutionaries back to
Russia in April 1917. This strategy finally bore fruit with the
October Revolution, after which Russia largely ceased fighting
Germany. Even this was too late to have much effect in 1917; it was
not until spring 1918 that Germany was ready to use the forces freed
from the Eastern Front in a major assault in the west.
Considering how compliant Lenin was with German terms at Brest-
Litovsk, and how Lenin later even agreed to *_aid Germany_* in the
war
(per agreements of August 1918), it seems unlikely that a victorious
Germany would be in any hurry to remove him. Germany might even have
aided Lenin in repulsing the various counter-revolutionary
expeditions
sent by Western nations after the war, or else the defeated Western
powers might well never have sent them to begin with.
And this not-very-alternate scenario has nothing to make any less
likely Stalin=92s rise after Lenin died. Thus it seems likely that
Bolshevism would have been left to evolve its way toward totalitarian
socialism, and we would have had the mass horrors of Stalinism
anyway.
PARR: The crucial year was 1918 because if the Great War had ended
in victory for either side -- most likely, the German side, if
Wilson,
contrary to his campaign pledges in 1916, had not led the United
States into that conflagration -- then the Kasier [sic] would not
have
had to abdicate, and in Russia, the Whites would eventually have
triumphed in a civil war against the Reds.
TK: Again, I wonder on what basis you reach that last conclusion.
Having in effect brought the Bolsheviks to power to take Russia out
of
the war, why would a victorious Germany sit idly by and let them be
overthrown by the Whites? White ranks included many right-wing
military men who had fought against Germany. Whites who might well
start a revanchist campaign to regain what Lenin had so casually
given
Ludendorff at Brest-Litovsk. Why would Germany tolerate a counter-
revolution so contrary to its interests?
PARR: The German army was indeed betrayed. It was no myth. The
other side of the betrayal coin is that it was not Jewish financiers
or a backdoor man such as, say, Walter Rathenau who did the
betraying. The chief betraitor, to employ a neologism, was none
other
than Erich von Ludendorff, the de facto leader of the German war
effort by 1917.
TK: Strange, most historians I=92ve read _do_ regard the =93betrayal=94
as
a myth, and they regard Ludendorff as the main propagator of the
myth,
through his post-war memoirs. Can you provide references for your
claim?
PARR: Ludendorff suffered a celebrated nervous breakdown in August-
September 1917, urging the Kaiser to sue for an armistice =85
TK: I can find no record of this =93celebrated nervous breakdown in
1917.=94 What is your source for this claim? All my sources seem to
indicate Ludendorff was on the job steadily though that year. There
is
mention of him being in =93a completely inert mood=94 in the diary of
German Colonel Mertz von Quirnheim, but this was on August 7
*_1918_*,
not 1917. By then the loss of morale and nerve that was affecting
Ludendorff and the German High Command was a rather rational
reaction,
a recognition of the fact that Germany was busted.
PARR: =85 when the German army was certainly capable of withdrawing
to
the German border and erecting defenses with crucially shortened
supply lines at numerous rivers and hills that would have cost the
allies millions of men to breach, given the limited mobility of both
sides during WWI.
TK: It=92s hard to imagine _why_ Germany would do this in September
1917, with its strategy in Russia just about to bear fruit. And it=92s
hard to imagine _how_ they would do this in September 1918, by which
time =93limited mobility=94 was becoming much less limited, and the
Allies
were making significant advances.
PARR: There would have been no question in that period of crossing
the Rhine.
TK: On a military question, I am more inclined to heed a
professional military man. In this case, the commander of the
American
Expeditionary Force in Europe, General John Pershing, who urged the
Allied leaders to take the war onto German soil in 1918. After the
armistice, Pershing remarked ruefully =93[W]hat an enormous difference
a
few more days would have made =85 What I dread is that Germany doesn=92t
know that she was licked. Had they given us another week, we=92d have
taught them.=94 Prescient words =96 had they been heeded, I think
Hitler=92s
rise might have been precluded as effectively as by a German victory.
BTW, Larry, where do you get the idea that a German victory was at
all feasible in 1917? How do you envision it happening? They spent
the
early part of 1917 actually withdrawing back to the Hindenburg Line,
not advancing. The abdication of the Tsar did not have the effect the
Germans would have liked, as the provisional Russian government
rejected German armistice offers in mid-1917 and continued their war
effort. About the same time the Russians were rejecting an armistice,
German allies Austria and Bulgaria were talking about asking the
Allies for one. Through most of the latter half of the year, the
Western Front remained in stalemate or saw limited Allied success,
and
this without meaningful American involvement yet. And the attitude of
the Western leaders was irrevocably adamant; as Clemenceau said in
November 1917, =93My policy is war, nothing but war.=94 Even had the US
stayed out it was very unlikely Germany could have won in the west
until mid-1918, which you have already described as =93the fatal year.=94
And how can you be so sure that German victory at some point in
1917
would have all the wonderful effects you envision? The war-induced
desensitization and brutalization that later lent itself to
totalitarian movements was already well advanced. Casualties were
already in the millions.
I have an interesting book, =93What If?=94 (Berkeley Books 1999),
edited
by Robert Cowley, and featuring essays by such historians as John
Keegan and Stephen Ambrose, discussing alternate scenarios for about
20 major turning points in military history ranging from Salamis in
480 BC to Manchuria in 1946.
World War I gets a lot of attention, but all the German victory
scenarios deal with *_1914_* only, not 1917. Had Germany stuck more
closely to the Schlieffen Plan in 1914, a quick victory was indeed
possible, and in that case Cowley quite agrees with you that World
War
II and the horrors of 20th-century totalitarianism would never have
come to pass; as Dennis Showalter puts it, it would have resulted in
=93a Europe safe for men with briefcases and potbellies.=94 Cowley
writes:
=93Without the events of 1914, we would have skipped a more sinister
legacy, and one that has permanently scarred our lives: the
brutalization that trench warfare, with its mass killings, visited on
an entire generation. What men like Adolf Hitler learned in that
first
Holocaust, they would, as John Keegan has written, =93repeat twenty
years later in every corner of Europe.=94
But, it seems to me, by 1917 things had gone too far for a return
to
pot-bellied tranquility. That brutalization wrought by trench warfare
was by then well advanced, and it was not likely to disappear soon,
no
matter who won the war.
|
| |
AH, MY FOES, AND OH, MY FRIENDS
The computer was repaired and I can now receive messages again.
Would Taylor Kingston be good enough to resend his questions about
WWI?
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> INFECTED BY VIRUS
>
> I can send messages but I can't get them.
>
> A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
> saved e-mails.
>
> I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
> respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
> that my computer has been repaired.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
|
| | |
Date: 27 May 2008 10:30:42
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Parr is back online
|
[email protected] wrote:
> AH, MY FOES, AND OH, MY FRIENDS
>
> The computer was repaired and I can now receive messages again.
>
> Would Taylor Kingston be good enough to resend his questions about
> WWI?
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> INFECTED BY VIRUS
>>
>> I can send messages but I can't get them.
>>
>> A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
>> saved e-mails.
>>
>> I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
>> respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
>> that my computer has been repaired.
>>
>> Yours, Larry Parr
Ah! Excellent. I would much rather read about WWI and possibly how it
impacted leading players of the day than say GetClub. Did we lose any
very promising talents in combat? Were any celebrated military minds
also good chess players?
Welcome back.
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2008 00:15:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
On May 20, 2:53 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> > I can hardly wait. For 90 years historians have been unable
> >> > to agree on causes and effects of the Great War. And all
> >> > they had to do is ask Larry Parr and Sam Sloan!
> krieg -> kreig
> Liechtenstein -> Lichtenstein
> Parrot -> Parr
> Slug -> Sloan
>
> It sounds much more authoritative when the
> spelling is flawless.
Over here there is a reseccion going on; it would
seem crule and pointless to put pedants out of
work under these circumstanses. Still, objectively,
you are 100# correct.
But I note that you have failed to account for why
my ideas were not adopted. As Mr. Sloan has
shown, had he been in charge of Licktenstein, the
savings to members (i.e. citizens) would have been
in the millions of euros.
-- help not
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2008 23:14:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
On May 18, 1:13 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I can hardly wait. For 90 years historians have been unable
> > to agree on causes and effects of the Great War. And all
> > they had to do is ask Larry Parr and Sam Sloan!
>
> > All the remaining questions regarding WWI will soon be
> > resolved!
>
> Right. I am glad you finally recognize this.
I would like Mr. Parr or Mr. Sloan to explain
exactly why they used trench warfare in the
Great War instead of /my/ ideas of blitz-kreig,
jet aircraft fighters and titanium-hulled nuclear-
propelled submarines. As I see it, Lichtenstein
ought to have won but they were too stubborn
to even consider my proposals at the time,
calling them "outrageously expensive" and
"unorthodox", just as they later called my
idea of diverting half the Amazon's flow
through a pipeline to Africa, where the water
is desperately needed. People can be so
petty and short-sighted; what are a few
quadrillion dollars, when an entire continent
can be brought to life?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 20 May 2008 08:53:20
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d8dd149e-76a9-41ef-bd28-6169a3c93af3@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 1:13 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I can hardly wait. For 90 years historians have been unable
>> > to agree on causes and effects of the Great War. And all
>> > they had to do is ask Larry Parr and Sam Sloan!
>>
>> > All the remaining questions regarding WWI will soon be
>> > resolved!
>>
>> Right. I am glad you finally recognize this.
>
> I would like Mr. Parr or Mr. Sloan to explain
> exactly why they used trench warfare in the
> Great War instead of /my/ ideas of blitz-kreig,
> jet aircraft fighters and titanium-hulled nuclear-
> propelled submarines. As I see it, Lichtenstein
> ought to have won but they were too stubborn
> to even consider my proposals at the time,
> calling them "outrageously expensive" and
> "unorthodox", just as they later called my
> idea of diverting half the Amazon's flow
> through a pipeline to Africa, where the water
> is desperately needed. People can be so
> petty and short-sighted; what are a few
> quadrillion dollars, when an entire continent
> can be brought to life?
>
>
> -- help bot
>
krieg - > kreig
Liechtenstein - > Lichtenstein
Parrot - > Parr
Slug - > Sloan
It sounds much more authoritative when the
spelling is flawless.
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2008 10:13:30
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
On May 18, 8:48 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:cc9829d6-00b9-=
[email protected]...
> On May 17, 11:41 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > SAZANOV'S MEMOIRS
>
> > <I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov
> > book.> Sam Sloan
>
> > Dear Sam,
>
> > I still can receive nothing in my email that can
> > be read. But as before, I can send out messages.
> > Unfortunately, I cannot attach documents. So, if
> > you look below, I have patched in what is NOT
> > a final draft of the Introduction. I think it is more
> > or less okay, but I want to look at it in a few days
> > with a fresh eye.
>
> > Still, I think the Intro says something
> > important about Sazonov and places him well
> > in the history of his time.
>
> > THE STATESMAN WHO PLAYED WITH MATCHES
>
> > By Larry Parr
>
> > =93Woe to the statesman whose reasons for entering a war do not appear
> > so plausible at its end as at its beginning.=94 =96 Otto von Bismarck, a=
s
> > quoted
> > in Henry Kissinger=92s White House Years
>
> > =93This war is the greatest crime ever perpetrated against mankind.
> > Those who originated it have a terrible responsibility on the
> > conscience.=94 =96 Sergei
> > Sazonov, in a speech to the Russian Duma on February 22, 1916
>
> > In THE FATEFUL YEARS Sergei or Serge (the French
> > rendering) Sazonov relates his career as a diplomat,
> > which in its first period was suitably obscure =96
> > Second Secretary of Russia=92s London embassy and
> > Russian Minister to the Vatican. Even professional
> > historians in closely related fields would be sore
> > pressed these days to recollect many details of late
> > 19th century Russo-Papal politics.
>
> > [The rest of my introduction is deleted.]
>
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > On May 14, 10:23 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > INFECTED BY VIRUS
>
> > > > I can send messages but I can't get them.
>
> > > > A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of m=
y
> > > > saved e-mails.
>
> > > > I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
> > > > respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone=
> > > > that my computer has been repaired.
>
> > > > Yours, Larry Parr
>
> > > I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov book.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> OK. The book "The Fateful Years 1909-1916" by Serge Sazonov is about
> to come out as soon as Larry Parr can get his computer fixed and gets
> back from Singapore.
>
> Until Larry Parr gets his computer fixed, World War One will have to
> wait.
>
> When it does come out, the book will be available athttp://www.amazon.com/=
dp/0923891323
>
> with an introduction by Larry Parr of course.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> I can hardly wait. For 90 years historians have been unable
> to agree on causes and effects of the Great War. And all
> they had to do is ask Larry Parr and Sam Sloan!
>
> All the remaining questions regarding WWI will soon be
> resolved!
Right. I am glad you finally recognize this.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2008 07:58:33
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
On May 17, 11:41 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> SAZANOV'S MEMOIRS
>
> <I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov
> book.> Sam Sloan
>
> Dear Sam,
>
> I still can receive nothing in my email that can
> be read. But as before, I can send out messages.
> Unfortunately, I cannot attach documents. So, if
> you look below, I have patched in what is NOT
> a final draft of the Introduction. I think it is more
> or less okay, but I want to look at it in a few days
> with a fresh eye.
>
> Still, I think the Intro says something
> important about Sazonov and places him well
> in the history of his time.
>
> THE STATESMAN WHO PLAYED WITH MATCHES
>
> By Larry Parr
>
> =93Woe to the statesman whose reasons for entering a war do not appear
> so plausible at its end as at its beginning.=94 =96 Otto von Bismarck, as
> quoted
> in Henry Kissinger=92s White House Years
>
> =93This war is the greatest crime ever perpetrated against mankind.
> Those who originated it have a terrible responsibility on the
> conscience.=94 =96 Sergei
> Sazonov, in a speech to the Russian Duma on February 22, 1916
>
> In THE FATEFUL YEARS Sergei or Serge (the French
> rendering) Sazonov relates his career as a diplomat,
> which in its first period was suitably obscure =96
> Second Secretary of Russia=92s London embassy and
> Russian Minister to the Vatican. Even professional
> historians in closely related fields would be sore
> pressed these days to recollect many details of late
> 19th century Russo-Papal politics.
>
> [The rest of my introduction is deleted.]
>
> samsloan wrote:
> > On May 14, 10:23 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > INFECTED BY VIRUS
>
> > > I can send messages but I can't get them.
>
> > > A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
> > > saved e-mails.
>
> > > I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
> > > respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
> > > that my computer has been repaired.
>
> > > Yours, Larry Parr
>
> > I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov book.
>
> > Sam Sloan
OK. The book "The Fateful Years 1909-1916" by Serge Sazonov is about
to come out as soon as Larry Parr can get his computer fixed and gets
back from Singapore.
Until Larry Parr gets his computer fixed, World War One will have to
wait.
When it does come out, the book will be available at
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891323
with an introduction by Larry Parr of course.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2008 17:48:41
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cc9829d6-00b9-4e20-9a36-d1215af6ed90@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 11:41 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> SAZANOV'S MEMOIRS
>
> <I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov
> book.> Sam Sloan
>
> Dear Sam,
>
> I still can receive nothing in my email that can
> be read. But as before, I can send out messages.
> Unfortunately, I cannot attach documents. So, if
> you look below, I have patched in what is NOT
> a final draft of the Introduction. I think it is more
> or less okay, but I want to look at it in a few days
> with a fresh eye.
>
> Still, I think the Intro says something
> important about Sazonov and places him well
> in the history of his time.
>
> THE STATESMAN WHO PLAYED WITH MATCHES
>
> By Larry Parr
>
> �Woe to the statesman whose reasons for entering a war do not appear
> so plausible at its end as at its beginning.� � Otto von Bismarck, as
> quoted
> in Henry Kissinger�s White House Years
>
> �This war is the greatest crime ever perpetrated against mankind.
> Those who originated it have a terrible responsibility on the
> conscience.� � Sergei
> Sazonov, in a speech to the Russian Duma on February 22, 1916
>
> In THE FATEFUL YEARS Sergei or Serge (the French
> rendering) Sazonov relates his career as a diplomat,
> which in its first period was suitably obscure �
> Second Secretary of Russia�s London embassy and
> Russian Minister to the Vatican. Even professional
> historians in closely related fields would be sore
> pressed these days to recollect many details of late
> 19th century Russo-Papal politics.
>
> [The rest of my introduction is deleted.]
>
> samsloan wrote:
> > On May 14, 10:23 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > INFECTED BY VIRUS
>
> > > I can send messages but I can't get them.
>
> > > A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
> > > saved e-mails.
>
> > > I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
> > > respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
> > > that my computer has been repaired.
>
> > > Yours, Larry Parr
>
> > I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov book.
>
> > Sam Sloan
OK. The book "The Fateful Years 1909-1916" by Serge Sazonov is about
to come out as soon as Larry Parr can get his computer fixed and gets
back from Singapore.
Until Larry Parr gets his computer fixed, World War One will have to
wait.
When it does come out, the book will be available at
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891323
with an introduction by Larry Parr of course.
Sam Sloan
===========================================
I can hardly wait. For 90 years historians have been unable
to agree on causes and effects of the Great War. And all
they had to do is ask Larry Parr and Sam Sloan!
All the remaining questions regarding WWI will soon be
resolved!
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2008 17:28:11
From: Javert
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
On May 14, 9:23 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> INFECTED BY VIRUS
>
> I can send messages but I can't get them.
>
If only it was vice versa.
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2008 09:57:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
On May 17, 11:41 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> SAZANOV'S MEMOIRS
>
> <I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov
> book.> Sam Sloan
>
> Dear Sam,
>
> I still can receive nothing in my email that can
> be read. But as before, I can send out messages.
> Unfortunately, I cannot attach documents. So, if
> you look below, I have patched in what is NOT
> a final draft of the Introduction. I think it is more
> or less okay, but I want to look at it in a few days
> with a fresh eye.
>
> Still, I think the Intro says something
> important about Sazonov and places him well
> in the history of his time.
>
> THE STATESMAN WHO PLAYED WITH MATCHES
>
> By Larry Parr
>
> =93Woe to the statesman whose reasons for entering a war do not appear
> so plausible at its end as at its beginning.=94 =96 Otto von Bismarck, as
> quoted
> in Henry Kissinger=92s White House Years
>
> =93This war is the greatest crime ever perpetrated against mankind.
> Those who originated it have a terrible responsibility on the
> conscience.=94 =96 Sergei
> Sazonov, in a speech to the Russian Duma on February 22, 1916
>
> In THE FATEFUL YEARS Sergei or Serge (the French
> rendering) Sazonov relates his career as a diplomat,
> which in its first period was suitably obscure =96
> Second Secretary of Russia=92s London embassy and
> Russian Minister to the Vatican. Even professional
> historians in closely related fields would be sore
> pressed these days to recollect many details of late
> 19th century Russo-Papal politics.
>
> [The rest of my introduction is deleted.]
>
> samsloan wrote:
> > On May 14, 10:23 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > INFECTED BY VIRUS
>
> > > I can send messages but I can't get them.
>
> > > A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
> > > saved e-mails.
>
> > > I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
> > > respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
> > > that my computer has been repaired.
>
> > > Yours, Larry Parr
>
> > I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov book.
>
> > Sam Sloan
I just sent your introduction to you in PDF Format. I think you did a
good job.
Let me know if it is OK. If it is I will send it to the printers.
Sam
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2008 08:41:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
SAZANOV'S MEMOIRS
<I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov
book. > Sam Sloan
Dear Sam,
I still can receive nothing in my email that can
be read. But as before, I can send out messages.
Unfortunately, I cannot attach documents. So, if
you look below, I have patched in what is NOT
a final draft of the Introduction. I think it is more
or less okay, but I want to look at it in a few days
with a fresh eye.
Still, I think the Intro says something
important about Sazonov and places him well
in the history of his time.
THE STATESMAN WHO PLAYED WITH MATCHES
By Larry Parr
=93Woe to the statesman whose reasons for entering a war do not appear
so plausible at its end as at its beginning.=94 =96 Otto von Bismarck, as
quoted
in Henry Kissinger=92s White House Years
=93This war is the greatest crime ever perpetrated against mankind.
Those who originated it have a terrible responsibility on the
conscience.=94 =96 Sergei
Sazonov, in a speech to the Russian Duma on February 22, 1916
In THE FATEFUL YEARS Sergei or Serge (the French
rendering) Sazonov relates his career as a diplomat,
which in its first period was suitably obscure =96
Second Secretary of Russia=92s London embassy and
Russian Minister to the Vatican. Even professional
historians in closely related fields would be sore
pressed these days to recollect many details of late
19th century Russo-Papal politics.
[The rest of my introduction is deleted.]
samsloan wrote:
> On May 14, 10:23 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > INFECTED BY VIRUS
> >
> > I can send messages but I can't get them.
> >
> > A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
> > saved e-mails.
> >
> > I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
> > respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
> > that my computer has been repaired.
> >
> > Yours, Larry Parr
>
> I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov book.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 15 May 2008 10:54:32
From:
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
On May 15, 1:44=A0pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> J=FCrgen R. wrote:
>
> > <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:3b3337b0-ec98-4b99-b45e-7f7a130b7bb6@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...=
> >> INFECTED BY VIRUS
>
> >> I can send messages but I can't get them.
>
> >> A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
> >> saved e-mails.
>
> >> I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
> >> respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
> >> that my computer has been repaired.
>
> >> Yours, Larry Parr
>
> > It is completely obvious who is responsible for
> > this ghastly crime: Sluong did it.
>
> > It is clear, beyond any reasonable doubt,
> > that the fake Sam Sloan was the real Sam Sloan
> > pretending to be Paul Truong impersonating Sam
> > Sloan. So we will call him Troan or Sluong from
> > now on.
>
> So.....it was Troan the Barbarian. :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, this could only be the work of ... dare I say it ... Keyser
S=F6ze.
|
| | |
Date: 19 May 2008 21:13:45
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On May 15, 1:44=A0pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> J=FCrgen R. wrote:
>>> It is completely obvious who is responsible for
>>> this ghastly crime: Sluong did it.
>>
>> So.....it was Troan the Barbarian. :-)
>
> No, this could only be the work of ... dare I say it ... Keyser
> S=F6ze.
Kingston always said, `I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him.'
Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser
Soze.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Beefy Drink (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing juice beverage that's made
from a cow!
|
| |
Date: 15 May 2008 17:41:17
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b3337b0-ec98-4b99-b45e-7f7a130b7bb6@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> INFECTED BY VIRUS
>
> I can send messages but I can't get them.
>
> A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
> saved e-mails.
>
> I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
> respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
> that my computer has been repaired.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
It is completely obvious who is responsible for
this ghastly crime: Sluong did it.
It is clear, beyond any reasonable doubt,
that the fake Sam Sloan was the real Sam Sloan
pretending to be Paul Truong impersonating Sam
Sloan. So we will call him Troan or Sluong from
now on.
|
| | |
Date: 15 May 2008 17:44:44
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
J�rgen R. wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3b3337b0-ec98-4b99-b45e-7f7a130b7bb6@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> INFECTED BY VIRUS
>>
>> I can send messages but I can't get them.
>>
>> A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
>> saved e-mails.
>>
>> I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
>> respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
>> that my computer has been repaired.
>>
>> Yours, Larry Parr
>
> It is completely obvious who is responsible for
> this ghastly crime: Sluong did it.
>
> It is clear, beyond any reasonable doubt,
> that the fake Sam Sloan was the real Sam Sloan
> pretending to be Paul Truong impersonating Sam
> Sloan. So we will call him Troan or Sluong from
> now on.
>
So.....it was Troan the Barbarian. :-)
|
| |
Date: 15 May 2008 02:46:18
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
You didn't back up your data?
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3b3337b0-ec98-4b99-b45e-7f7a130b7bb6@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> INFECTED BY VIRUS
>
> I can send messages but I can't get them.
>
> A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
> saved e-mails.
>
> I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
> respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
> that my computer has been repaired.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2008 23:14:00
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
On May 14, 10:23 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> INFECTED BY VIRUS
>
> I can send messages but I can't get them.
>
> A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
> saved e-mails.
>
> I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
> respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
> that my computer has been repaired.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov book.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 15 May 2008 02:46:58
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
> I hope you have not lost the work you were doing on the Sazonov book.
He speaks for the rest of the world here I can tell ya.
God hope this did not happen.
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2008 19:40:38
From:
Subject: Re: Parr's Computer Crashed!
|
On May 14, 9:23=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> INFECTED BY VIRUS
>
> I can send messages but I can't get them.
>
> A virus apparently has wiped out all of my files as well as all of my
> saved e-mails.
>
> I intend to answer Taylor Kingston's questions about WW1 and
> respectfully request him to resend them ONLY AFTER I advise everyone
> that my computer has been repaired.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
I suspect it is the US goverment. They aren't getting their way,
lately. If anyone else
gets attacked, please share it. It could be FIDE, but I doubt it...
Marcus Roberts
|
|
