Promoting chess discussion.
|
|
Chess Forum Promoting chess discussion. |
news:[email protected]... > On another thread someone stated that Boris Spassky was Jewish. I had always > thought he was Russian Orthodox. > > http://marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar/2004/01/searching_for_b.html > 'The system was so suspicious and inefficient that Spassky had to seek > permission to buy and have translated foreign chess journals in order to > carry out the most basic preparation. He was in no way a model Soviet > citizen but a traditional "Russian patriot, the inheritor of Russian > Orthodox religious culture".' > > http://www.jrep.com/Info/10thAnniversary/1992/Article-12.html > 'Spassky was orphaned at a young age, when both of his parents were killed > in the siege of Leningrad. The two have one other thing in > common...Fischer's mother is Jewish and Spassky's mother is said to have > been Jewish too.' Spassky's mother was Jewish. Like Fischer, Spassky has expressed anti-Semitic sentiments, along with "explanations" of how/why his mother wasn't really Jewish. > So perhaps only Boris himself knows. > > Alan > > |
> Spassky's mother was Jewish. Hm, it's his last name which is Jewish. > Like Fischer, Spassky has expressed > anti-Semitic sentiments, I doubt it very much. On rgcm someone cited a reaction of Spassky to Fischer's nonsense, in a conversation between spassky and someone who knew him well (Korchnoy?), when Spassky with straight face said that Fischer was "right". It was very obvious that Spassky was joking, deadpanning in his style. > along with "explanations" of how/why his > mother wasn't really Jewish. Would it be because it was his father, not his mother, that was Jewish? Due to the so many angles of Jewishness: "blood", religious, selfproclamations (which may change in time), persecutions, ... the question often is interesting and not simple, does not have to have a simple answer in terms of the percentile. To Nazies you were a Jew if you had 50% or more "Jewish blood". Hugo Hteinhaus, the great Polsich mathematician made fun of it in his diary, writing that these idiots didn't see that their definition was (infinitely) iterative. He himself, Steinhaus, was of Jewish descend, had to appear under a different name and to hide from Germans, when they occupied Poland during WWII, but in his diaries he never mentions his ethnic descend. His family had converted to (protestant?) christianism long before WWII. I see also the question of Schlechter's ethnicity, that his family was (deeply?) catholic. Pssibly they were converts too, I don't know (possibly that's why Schlechter ended up in Judaica-- but there are worse dishonors, Mr. Fischer :-). Regards, Wlod |
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > > Spassky's mother was Jewish. > > Hm, it's his last name which is Jewish. > > > Like Fischer, Spassky has expressed > > anti-Semitic sentiments, > > I doubt it very much. On rgcm someone cited > a reaction of Spassky to Fischer's nonsense, > in a conversation between spassky and > someone who knew him well (Korchnoy?), > when Spassky with straight face said that > Fischer was "right". It was very obvious > that Spassky was joking, deadpanning in his > style. > > > along with "explanations" of how/why his > > mother wasn't really Jewish. > > Would it be because it was his father, not his mother, > that was Jewish? > > Due to the so many angles of Jewishness: > "blood", religious, selfproclamations (which may > change in time), persecutions, ... the question > often is interesting and not simple, does not > have to have a simple answer in terms of > the percentile. To Nazies you were a Jew if you had > 50% or more "Jewish blood". Hugo Hteinhaus, the > great Polsich mathematician made fun of it in his > diary, writing that these idiots didn't see that > their definition was (infinitely) iterative. > He himself, Steinhaus, was of Jewish descend, had > to appear under a different name and to hide from > Germans, when they occupied Poland during WWII, > but in his diaries he never mentions his ethnic > descend. His family had converted to (protestant?) > christianism long before WWII. I see also the question > of Schlechter's ethnicity, that his family was (deeply?) > catholic. Pssibly they were converts too, I don't know > (possibly that's why Schlechter ended up in Judaica-- > but there are worse dishonors, Mr. Fischer :-). > > Regards, > > Wlod Wlod: I based my post primarily on Hans Ree's essay "Vegetarians" reprinted in "The Human Comedy of Chess, the piece about Fischer's anti-Semitism, particularly as portrayed by Petra Dautov in "Bobby Fischer, Wie Er Wirklich Ist." Ree wrote that in "The Inner Game," apparently the book published in the U.S. under the title "End Game," Dominic Lawson "characterized Spassky as a fierce anti-Semite, who temporarily dragged Short into his distaste for Jews. Lawson's book is very malicious; overall, he is not very generous toward chess players. I was wondering. Don't they always write about Spassky that his mother was Jewish? Is what Lawson wrote actually true? I asked a Russia specialist, who told me it was. He said: 'His mother looked very Jewish and her name was the Russian equivalent of Sarah Cohen, but Boris claims that is a coincidence.'" Do you think that "Russia expert" was wrong? I have it from someone else who knew Spassky personally that that this characterization of him is true. Best, Bob |
> "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:<[email protected]>... > > > > > Spassky's mother was Jewish. > > > > Hm, it's his last name which is Jewish. > > So, the Spassky Tower in the Kremlin bears a Jewish name? I wonder how Stalin felt about that. I remember that he insisted that a man named Zhidov should be renamed Zhadov, else he might seem to be Jewish. (Zhid might seem to be like Yid.) David Ames |
> Wlod: > > I based my post primarily on Hans Ree's essay "Vegetarians" reprinted in > "The Human Comedy of Chess, the piece about Fischer's anti-Semitism, > particularly as portrayed by Petra Dautov in "Bobby Fischer, Wie Er > Wirklich Ist." > > Ree wrote that in "The Inner Game," apparently the book published > in the U.S. under the title "End Game," Dominic Lawson "characterized > Spassky as a fierce anti-Semite, who temporarily dragged Short into > his distaste for Jews. Lawson's book is very malicious; overall, he > is not very generous toward chess players. I was wondering. Don't > they always write about Spassky that his mother was Jewish? Is what > Lawson wrote actually true? I asked a Russia specialist, who told me > it was. He said: 'His mother looked very Jewish and her name was the > Russian equivalent of Sarah Cohen, but Boris claims that is > a coincidence.'" > > Do you think that "Russia expert" was wrong? I have it from someone > else who knew Spassky personally that that this characterization of > him is true. > > Best, > Bob These are difficult even impossible) questions to settle when one doesn't know for sure. I can only say how I see it, mostly probabilistically. It's hard to imagine a Russian who would name his/her daughter in a way which would associate with Jewishness. It would be like condemning your child to a hardship. Russian names which end in "ski" or "cki" (= "tski") are in principle of Polish descend. E.g. The greatest writer ever (in my opinion :-) Dostoyevski was extremely anti-Polish, also anti_Jewish and anti-French. Nevertheless his last name indicates that he had a Polish ancestor on his father side. Ok, the ending "ski" and "cki" is Polish but more often than not it is carried by Jews. When Russia, Prussia and Austria took over Poland (or the Union of Poland and Lithuania) near the end of 18th century, Russia inherited Polish Jews as well. Russia (Russian Tsar or rather his clerks) would give Jews names. Often names ending in "ski" and "cki", often "funny" names, sometimes, again for "fun", very aristocratic names. Something similar took place on Polish lands also under Prussia (perhaps under Austria too but I am not sure). For instance, you could think that Boleslawski is a very Polish name but as you know, Boleslavski is a Jew. Also the last names consisting of Polish cities names, followed by the "ski" suffix (which turn them formally-gramatically into adjectives) such as Warszawski, Krakowski, Poznanski, etc.are as a rule Jewish. I don't know these days any nonJewish Russians who would have a name like Spasski (but then, what do I know). During the Soviet era, antisemitism in the Soviet Union officially didn't exist, was never acknowledged despite the severe persecutions--they were called "anti-Zionist" actions. No Soviet would say anything antiSemitic, say, to a Western journalist. You could criticise and fight fiercely only against "Zionism". Many people were killed this way in the soviet Union, many were severly persecuted (or even killed) in the Soviet block. Word "Zyd" (with a dot above "Z", giving it "zh" sound, or French "J") is a standard Polish word for "Jew" for someone who is ethnically a Jew (whatever it means :-). When you want to describe someone as a person of Jewish religion then you write "zyd" in Polish (lower case "j"), just as you would write "katolik (catholic) -- lower case "k". But in Russia word "Zhid" had such a negative connotation in the Russian mind and usage, that it was strictly forbidden by Soviets. If one hated Jews, and was educated enough, s/he could call them Zionists but never "Zhids" -- that was actually punishable. I am trying to say that it would be often not easy to tell who during the Soviet years had negative emotions about Jews. And still it is hard for me to believe that our relaxed Spasski, who befriended(?) Tal, who had no conflicts (that I know of) with, say, Geller or Stein or many others, that he would be antiSemitic and even fircely so. I know that Spassky and Petrosian after several years of a bitter CHESS rivalry finally stopped to be too friendly one to another. But that's natural. I imagine that Spasski has no reason to like Karppov, that he could be bitter about Geller helpin Karpov... But I don't know about any conflict otherwise that Spasski would have with another Jewish player. One way or another, it's been years since Soviet Union is gone. If Spassky had antiSemitic sentiments, wouldn't we know it by now from several sources? And first of all from Spasski himself? I'd like to make you careful about misinterpretting a possible anegdotical material. Jews, perhaps more than other ethnic groups, use auto-irony, sarcasm, etc. Many times, when you listen to Jews talking among themselves, or sometimes even in a mixed company, you'd swear that you're listening to anti-Semites. On the top of it, historically, asimilated Jews were be often prejudiced against "backward" Jews who preserved their ethnic and religious style. They would not be different in it, at least superficially, form anti-Semites (however, hopefully, and this may be the difference, they would not actually persecute Jews, they would stop at putting down the Jewish "backward" customs and possibly the poverty of "orthodox" Jews). Perhaps Fischer degenerated behavior and anti-Semitic emotions can be interpreted as an historical extension of these kind of complexes which were shared by many asimilated Jews (this would be but a component; in layman terms, Fischer is very sick). I've met in the States also Blacks who had similar uneasy feelings and were even prejudiced against Blacks. It is also recognized that women are often harsh on other women. As you see, Bob, I am able to provide only certain vague indications of tghis or that. On the other hand the Lawson's book as a sole source of information about Spasski's atrtitude toward Jews seems to me far from adequate. Just imagine, that Spasski and Short were joking, while a bystander has passed his recollections from such a session, perhaps indirectly, to Lawson or whoever, who decided on his own interpretation. Even word for word citing two people who are joking, who understand each other, could be very misleading when later read by others. Best regards, Wlodek |
news:[email protected]... > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > > Wlod: > > > > I based my post primarily on Hans Ree's essay "Vegetarians" reprinted in > > "The Human Comedy of Chess, the piece about Fischer's anti-Semitism, > > particularly as portrayed by Petra Dautov in "Bobby Fischer, Wie Er > > Wirklich Ist." > > > > Ree wrote that in "The Inner Game," apparently the book published > > in the U.S. under the title "End Game," Dominic Lawson "characterized > > Spassky as a fierce anti-Semite, who temporarily dragged Short into > > his distaste for Jews. Lawson's book is very malicious; overall, he > > is not very generous toward chess players. I was wondering. Don't > > they always write about Spassky that his mother was Jewish? Is what > > Lawson wrote actually true? I asked a Russia specialist, who told me > > it was. He said: 'His mother looked very Jewish and her name was the > > Russian equivalent of Sarah Cohen, but Boris claims that is > > a coincidence.'" > > > > Do you think that "Russia expert" was wrong? I have it from someone > > else who knew Spassky personally that that this characterization of > > him is true. > > > > Best, > > Bob <learned treatise snipped > > I am trying to say that it would be often not easy to tell > who during the Soviet years had negative emotions about Jews. > And still it is hard for me to believe that our relaxed > Spasski, who befriended(?) Tal, who had no conflicts (that > I know of) with, say, Geller or Stein or many others, that > he would be antiSemitic and even fircely so. I know that > Spassky and Petrosian after several years of a bitter > CHESS rivalry finally stopped to be too friendly one to > another. But that's natural. I imagine that Spasski has no > reason to like Karppov, that he could be bitter about Geller > helpin Karpov... But I don't know about any conflict otherwise > that Spasski would have with another Jewish player. > > One way or another, it's been years since Soviet Union > is gone. If Spassky had antiSemitic sentiments, wouldn't > we know it by now from several sources? And first of > all from Spasski himself? > > I'd like to make you careful about misinterpretting > a possible anegdotical material. Jews, perhaps more > than other ethnic groups, use auto-irony, sarcasm, > etc. Many times, when you listen to Jews talking > among themselves, or sometimes even in a mixed company, > you'd swear that you're listening to anti-Semites. > > On the top of it, historically, asimilated Jews were be > often prejudiced against "backward" Jews who preserved their > ethnic and religious style. They would not be different in it, > at least superficially, form anti-Semites (however, hopefully, > and this may be the difference, they would not actually > persecute Jews, they would stop at putting down the Jewish > "backward" customs and possibly the poverty of "orthodox" Jews). > Perhaps Fischer degenerated behavior and anti-Semitic emotions > can be interpreted as an historical extension of these kind > of complexes which were shared by many asimilated Jews (this > would be but a component; in layman terms, Fischer is very sick). > > I've met in the States also Blacks who had similar uneasy > feelings and were even prejudiced against Blacks. It is > also recognized that women are often harsh on other women. > > As you see, Bob, I am able to provide only certain vague > indications of tghis or that. On the other hand the Lawson's > book as a sole source of information about Spasski's atrtitude > toward Jews seems to me far from adequate. Just imagine, that > Spasski and Short were joking, while a bystander has passed his > recollections from such a session, perhaps indirectly, to Lawson > or whoever, who decided on his own interpretation. Even word for > word citing two people who are joking, who understand each other, > could be very misleading when later read by others. > > Best regards, > > Wlodek Wlodek, You make a lot of good points, and I can only hope that I haven't unfairly charged Spassky with views he doesn't hold. Concerning Spassky's Jewish friends: The same might be said of Fischer. He was surrounded by Jews most of his career and seems to have been on good terms with almost all, at the same time that he was holding a lot of the views that would become more extreme in later years. (Note the similar contrast between his publically stated views about "Commies" and the mutually respectful personal relationships he had with players like Tal, Spassky, and Korchnoi). If, however, Lawson is correct about Spassky's effect on Short, it hardly seems likely to have been a chance remark on which he was basing his portrayal of Spassky as anti-Semitic. I have to grant that the evidence on this issue is not so clear as it is in the case of Fischer. Bob |
> > I have to grant that the evidence on this issue > is not so clear as it is in the case of Fischer. > > Bob Bob, the above quoted sentence is so far the year 2004 rgcm leading understatment :-) Two more remarks about Spasski/Spassky and Fischer. Denying one's ethnic background ("the blood composition") does NOT mean that one is against his "blood" ethnic group, it doesn't imply any prejudice. In particular, Spaaski's denial of his (half- or whatever) Jewishness absolutely does not mean that he is antiSemitic. Not to mention that the "Jewish fraction" was possibly small, despite the name, hence "accidental". Another possibility is a "liberal and tolerant" view that your ethnic ("blood") background is something accidental, that what counts is only your own conviction and ethnic/national self-declaration (if it were not for Hitler we possibly would not know about Tarrash's and some other chess players' Jewish background). Talking about Fischer. I wonder what pronouncements about Jews his mother made, what was her attitude and style with regards to Jewishness. She was a leftist, perhaps even a wild leftist, with strong communist and pro-Soviet leanings. Even if at any time she became critical of SU (did she?), she was strongly affected by the communist/Soviet propaganda language and communist style. This could affect Fischer's childhood too. One should remember the anti-Jewish young Marx' prejudices. Regards, Wlod PS. The low class (simply idiotic) elaborations about alleged admiration for Fischer+Hitler (what a nonsense! in the context of our thread), made in this thread by the phony rgcm participant, whom I won't even name, are insensitive. To ease his trivial frustrations, he brutally steps on deep feelings of others, born out of a great tragedy, which translates into many **personal tragedies**. |
May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an attempt to improve his ability to read and to comprehend English? May I also suggest that he should attempt to keep in mind that, in fact, almost all writers in standard English today do *not* use their *terms in English* with the *identical meaning* that *he seems to attach to them--mistakenly--from his evidently more familiar cultural context of the Polish or Russian languages and life in old Eastern Europe under Communism?* If Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski were to suspect that he might have any potential misunderstanding about another writer's usage of English, then he could ask a more qualified reader in English for assistance, particularly before he writes another response that's evidently based on his misreading of English. Whenever I have attempted to communicate in a language that I don't yet know well enough, I always have assumed that any resulting misunderstandings were primarily, if not entirely, my own responsibility, not the native speakers'. It may be helpful to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (and others) to read this article: "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 77, no. 6, December 1999, pp. 1121-34. |
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this thread. > > May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an attempt to improve his > ability to read and to comprehend English? May I also suggest that he should > attempt to keep in mind that, in fact, almost all writers in standard English > today do *not* use their *terms in English* with the *identical meaning* that > *he seems to attach to them--mistakenly--from his evidently more familiar > cultural context of the Polish or Russian languages and life in old Eastern > Europe under Communism?* > > If Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski were to suspect that he might have any potential > misunderstanding about another writer's usage of English, then he could ask > a more qualified reader in English for assistance, particularly before he > writes another response that's evidently based on his misreading of English. > > Whenever I have attempted to communicate in a language that I don't yet know > well enough, I always have assumed that any resulting misunderstandings were > primarily, if not entirely, my own responsibility, not the native speakers'. > > It may be helpful to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (and others) to read this article: > > "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's > Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" by David Dunning > and Justin Kruger in the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, > vol. 77, no. 6, December 1999, pp. 1121-34. Nick, It may be helpful if you would communicate more clearly exactly what you are trying to say. I find Wlod's messages perfectly clear. It might also be helpful if you would read this book: http://makeashorterlink.com/?S18136157 Bob |
"Bob Musicant" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<tTBUb.39213$%[email protected] >... > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this thread. > > > > May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an attempt to improve > > his ability to read and to comprehend English? May I also suggest that he > > should attempt to keep in mind that, in fact, almost all writers in > > standard English today do *not* use their *terms in English* with the > > *identical meaning* that *he seems to attach to them--mistakenly--from his > > evidently more familiar cultural context of the Polish or Russian languages > > and life in old Eastern Europe under Communism?* > > > > If Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski were to suspect that he might have any > > potential misunderstanding about another writer's usage of English, then > > he could ask a more qualified reader in English for assistance, > > particularly before he writes another response that's evidently based on > > his misreading of English. > > > > Whenever I have attempted to communicate in a language that I don't yet > > know well enough, I always have assumed that any resulting misunderstandings > > were primarily, if not entirely, my own responsibility, not the native > > speakers'. > > > > It may be helpful to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (and others) to read this > > article: > > > > "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's > > Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" by David Dunning > > and Justin Kruger in the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, > > vol. 77, no. 6, December 1999, pp. 1121-34. > > Nick, It may be helpful if you would communicate more clearly exactly > what you are trying to say. Mr Musicant, as you advised, then I shall attempt to oblige you here by writing more clearly, though perhaps also less diplomatically. > I find Wlod's messages perfectly clear. Mr Musicant, I have to say that you have misunderstood (or distorted) what I wrote (above), which was introduced by this suggestion: "May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an attempt to improve his ability *to read and comprehend English*?" My comment pertained to Mr Holsztynski's *reading and comprehension of English* in general, *not his writing to you in particular* (though I would submit that Mr Holsztynski's writing of English could also be improved). My view is *not* that Mr Holsztynski is unable to write here in English, at least according to the generally low standards of Usenet literacy. My view is, however, that Mr Holsztynski has a record of evidently seriously misreading what I (not to mention other writers) have written in English, and then writing his often seriously mistaken, if not abusive, 'responses' evidently based on his serious misreadings or misunderstandings of English. For example (one of many), Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote in this thread (10 February 2004) about me (my comments are interspersed here): > Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote: > > Dishonest Nick is insolent in his treatmeant (sic) of rgcm... > > His shitty boomerang has striked back his dirty mouth. For the record, I already have cited more than sufficient evidence in this thread (please read it all for yourself) to disprove Mr Holsztynski's wild accusations against me. In particular, *Mr Holsztynski* (whom I have always addressed here properly as such or by his full name) has *introduced* such terms as 'shitty boomerang' into this thread. > > Nick wrote earlier in this thread: > > > Mr Holsztynski has the right to *change his evident original position* > > > about "Fischer's great intellectual ability". > > Then Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote about me: > > What is that "evident" doing in your garbage above? > > You are so dishonest that it is revolting. > > No, idiot, I didn't change my view that Fischer was profound also outside > > the chess bioard (sic), which to me means simply that he was profound... In my response (11 February 2004), I simply wrote: "Mr Holsztynski should look up the meaning of 'evident' in an English dictionary." I also pointed out that I wrote *only* of Mr Holsztynski's '*right to change* his (view)', *not* that he actually has changed it (which he misunderstood). As far as I can tell, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski did *not* understand the meaning of the term 'evident', and he did *not* make any effort to look it up in an English dictionary. Instead, in his ignorance, Mr Holsztynski apparently assumed that, given that I had used it in writing about him, the term 'evident' must be a *bad word*, with an extremely 'dishonest' or 'revolting' meaning. Notwithstanding the fact that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski knows hardly anything about me, personally or professionally, he always seems to draw the worst possible conclusions here--without sufficient supporting evidence--about my abilities, motives, and character, which he tends to express in offensive language. So I would submit that my position that Mr Holsztynski has serious difficulties in *reading and comprehending* what I write in English is the *most charitable* view that I could take toward his many abusive 'responses' about me. If I were to believe that Mr Holsztynski could understand perfectly what I have been writing in English and then had been writing his offensive nonsense about me anyhow, then my opinion of him would be even lower. --Nick |
Please read my earlier response to the first part of that post. "Bob Musicant" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<tTBUb.39213$%[email protected] >... > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this thread. > > > > May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an attempt to improve > > his ability to read and to comprehend English? May I also suggest that he > > should attempt to keep in mind that, in fact, almost all writers in standard > > English today do *not* use their *terms in English* with the *identical > > meaning* that *he seems to attach to them--mistakenly--from his evidently > > more familiar cultural context of the Polish or Russian languages and life > > in old Eastern Europe under Communism?* > > > > If Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski were to suspect that he might have any > > potential misunderstanding about another writer's usage of English, then he > > could ask a more qualified reader in English for assistance, particularly > > before he writes another response that's evidently based on his misreading > > of English. > > > > Whenever I have attempted to communicate in a language that I don't yet > > know well enough, I always have assumed that any resulting misunderstandings > > were primarily, if not entirely, my own responsibility, not the native > > speakers'. > > > > It may be helpful to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (and others) to read this > > article: > > > > "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's > > Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" by David Dunning > > and Justin Kruger in the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, > > vol. 77, no. 6, December 1999, pp. 1121-34. > > Nick, It may be helpful if you would communicate more clearly exactly what > you are trying to say. Mr Musicant, as you advised, then I shall attempt to oblige you here by writing more clearly, though perhaps also less diplomatically. > I find Wlod's messages perfectly clear. Mr Musicant, as I have pointed out in my previous response, I have to say that you have misunderstood (or distorted) what I wrote (above), which pertained to Mr Holsztynski's *reading and comprehension of English* in general, *not his writing to you in particular*. Mr Musicant, as far as I can tell, you seem to be a good friend of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. As far as I can tell from his other posts, Mr Holsztynski seems to have convinced himself that he's really much better than I am at reading, comprehending, and writing English. Mr Musicant, you may prefer to agree with Mr Holsztynski about his own self-evident far superior abilities at English, but I would submit that you would not be doing your friend any favour by feeding another of his self-delusions. Mr Musicant, I would concur with you, however, that *sometimes* Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has been able to write in English *clearly enough*, at least according to the generally low standards of Usenet literacy. But *sometimes* Mr Holsztynski has *not* written clearly or coherently enough to satisfy me or some other readers of my acquaintance here. Mr Musicant, do you really believe that it must be offensive to suggest to Mr Holsztynski, particularly when he seems unaware of it, that his writing of English could be improved? > It might also be helpful if you would read this book: > http://makeashorterlink.com/?S18136157 "Polite language and culture are correlated but only a little." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (10 February 2004, in this thread) (Mr Holsztynski evidently was 'justifying' his many abusive comments about me.) As far as I can tell, Bob Musicant seems to prefer not to criticise Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's ample record of abusive comments about me and other persons here. What I suggested (above in quoted text) to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski was a more diplomatic way of expressing what Mark Houlsby had advised him earlier. In the thread, "Relevant details" (7 December 2003), Mark Houlsby wrote to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski: "My advice to you is: confine yourself to writing about subjects with respect to which you are, undoubtedly, an expert. That way, you'll avoid *making yourself look like a trolling idiot*, just as you've done, in this thread, again." (the asterisks were in the original text) My view is *not* that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski is incompetent to write on any subject in rec.games.chess.misc. As I already have stated elsewhere, if Mr Holsztynski were to write on subjects about which he seems more or less qualified, then I can respect what he writes there even though I may not agree with it. My view is, however, that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski seems to lack a realistic knowledge of *the limits of his own competence* (everyone has some such limits). For example, as mentioned (above), Mr Holsztynski seems to have convinced himself that he's much better than I am at reading, comprehending, and writing English. For other examples, when Mr Holsztynski ("I am not any historian, not even an amateur historian.") writes about what he imagines must be 'history', he tends to 'look like a trolling idiot' (to quote Mark Houlsby). In particular, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski knows hardly anything about me, personally or professionally. So I would submit that Mr Holsztynski is quite unqualified to make, as he often has been doing, his many extremely cocksure and negative comments about me personally. I also would submit that any impartial reader who has read (which Mr Musicant evidently has not) the complete record (in context) of the posts between Mr Holsztynski and me should conclude that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has behaved much more offensively toward me than I have in response toward him. --Nick |
[email protected] (Nick) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > This post responds to the second part of Bob Musicant's post to me. > Please read my earlier response to the first part of that post. > > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in > message news:<tTBUb.39213$%[email protected]>... > > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this thread. > > > > > > May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an attempt to improve > > > his ability to read and to comprehend English? May I also suggest that > > > he should attempt to keep in mind that, in fact, almost all writers in > > > standard English today do *not* use their *terms in English* with the > > > *identical meaning* that *he seems to attach to them--mistakenly--from > > > his evidently more familiar cultural context of the Polish or Russian > > > languages and life in old Eastern Europe under Communism?* As I recall, on some occasions when I have used a term X in *the normal context of English today*, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has *seriously misunderstood or distorted* what it means by claiming (perhaps correctly) that the term X *had* quite different connotations in Polish or Russian in old Eastern Europe under Communism, and by contending--ludicrously--that I *must* (really?) have been using the term X *only in his more familiar cultural context* of experiences under Soviet Communism. Then Mr Holsztynski has personally attacked me again. Evidently unlike Wlodzimierz Holsztynski, who still seems too preoccupied here with refighting some of his old battles against Soviet Communism (He still seems to regard Anatoly Karpov primarily, if not only, as a political symbol of 'evil' Soviet power.), I happen to be aware that I am writing in English in 2004, when the old Cold War has already ended. The world *has* changed, though perhaps not Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's accustomed self-evident perceptions about it. > > > If Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski were to suspect that he might have any > > > potential misunderstanding about another writer's usage of English, > > > then he could ask a more qualified reader in English for assistance, > > > particularly before he writes another response that's evidently based > > > on his misreading of English. As far as I can tell, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski always seems to have great self-confidence in his own abilities to read, comprehend, and write English. Evidently, as I already have pointed out, Mr Holsztynski did *not* even make any effort to look up the meaning of my term 'evident' in an English dictionary *before* he wrongly concluded that it must be a *bad word*, with an extremely 'dishonest' or 'revolting' meaning that I was allegedly applying toward him. In fact, of course, the term 'evident' does *not* have any such bad meaning. Mr Holsztynski's common ignorance of English (which he seems quite unwilling to admit, at least to me) did not inhibit him from writing another baseless personal attack against me (for which he has *not* offered any apology). > > > Whenever I have attempted to communicate in a language that I don't > > > yet know well enough, I always have assumed that any resulting > > > misunderstandings were primarily, if not entirely, my own responsibility, > > > not the native speakers'. As far as I can tell, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski lacks the sense of humility that I had when I began my studies of English. > > > It may be helpful to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (and others) to read this > > > article: > > > > > > "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's > > > Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" by David Dunning > > > and Justin Kruger in the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, > > > vol. 77, no. 6, December 1999, pp. 1121-34. I happen to know that I am not the only reader here who has concluded that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski evidently has highly 'inflated self-assessments' of his own abilities in at least several ways, including his (mis)understanding of English and of history. > > Nick, It may be helpful if you would communicate more clearly exactly > > what you are trying to say. > > Mr Musicant, as you advised, then I shall attempt to oblige you here by > writing more clearly, though perhaps also less diplomatically. > > > I find Wlod's messages perfectly clear. > > Mr Musicant, as I have pointed out in my previous response, I have to say > that you have misunderstood (or distorted) what I wrote (above), which > pertained to Mr Holsztynski's *reading and comprehension of English* in > general, *not his writing to you in particular*. > > Mr Musicant, as far as I can tell, you seem to be a good friend of Wlodzimierz > Holsztynski. As far as I can tell from his other posts, Mr Holsztynski seems > to have convinced himself that he's really much better than I am at reading, > comprehending, and writing English. Mr Musicant, you may prefer to agree with > Mr Holsztynski about his own self-evident far superior abilities at English, > but I would submit that you would not be doing your friend any favour by > feeding another of his self-delusions. > > Mr Musicant, I would concur with you, however, that *sometimes* Wlodzimierz > Holsztynski has been able to write in English *clearly enough*, at least > according to the generally low standards of Usenet literacy. But *sometimes* > Mr Holsztynski has *not* written clearly or coherently enough to satisfy me > or some other readers of my acquaintance here. Mr Musicant, do you really > believe that it must be offensive to suggest to Mr Holsztynski, particularly > when he seems unaware of it, that his writing of English could be improved? On one hand, as far as I can tell, Bob Musicant seems to believe that it must be quite offensive to suggest that his friend 'Wlodek' Holsztynski's abilities to read or to write in English could be improved. "I am spitting virtually in his (my) face. It is as good as for real, and even better. I don't need any violence. Spitting virtually in his (my) cowardish face is good enough." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (30 January 2004, writing about me) On the other hand, as far as I know, Bob Musicant has preferred *not* to criticise anything about Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's many offensive comments. > > It might also be helpful if you would read this book: > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?S18136157 > > "Polite language and culture are correlated but only a little." > --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (10 February 2004, in this thread) > (Mr Holsztynski evidently was 'justifying' his many abusive comments about > me.) Mr Musicant, evidently Mr Holsztynski would take no interest in that book. > As far as I can tell, Bob Musicant seems to prefer not to criticise > Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's ample record of abusive comments about me > and other persons here. > > What I suggested (above in quoted text) to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski was a > more diplomatic way of expressing what Mark Houlsby had advised him earlier. > In the thread, "Relevant details" (7 December 2003), Mark Houlsby wrote > to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski: "My advice to you is: confine yourself to writing > about subjects with respect to which you are, undoubtedly, an expert. > That way, you'll avoid *making yourself look like a trolling idiot*, just as > you've done, in this thread, again." (the asterisks were in the original text) > > My view is *not* that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski is incompetent to write on > any subject in rec.games.chess.misc. In the interest of clarity, my statement (above) should be rewritten as: "My view is *not* that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski is *necessarily* incompetent to write on *every* subject in rec.games.chess.misc." > As I already have stated elsewhere, if Mr Holsztynski were to write on > subjects about which he seems more or less qualified, then I can respect what > he writes there even though I may not agree with it. My view is, however, > that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski seems to lack a realistic knowledge of *the > limits of his own competence* (everyone has some such limits). For example, > as mentioned (above), Mr Holsztynski seems to have convinced himself that > he's much better than I am at reading, comprehending, and writing English. > For other examples, when Mr Holsztynski ("I am not any historian, not even > an amateur historian.") writes about what he imagines must be 'history', he > tends to 'look like a trolling idiot' (to quote Mark Houlsby). In contrast, I have attempted to be careful enough to write only on those subjects about which I believe that I may be sufficient qualified to comment. For instance, as I am not a professionally practising psychoanalyst, I have preferred to avoid offering my specific hypotheses about Bobby Fischer's evident psychological condition(s). > In particular, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski knows hardly anything about me, > personally or professionally. So I would submit that Mr Holsztynski is quite > unqualified to make, as he often has been doing, his many extremely cocksure > and negative comments about me personally. I also would submit that any > impartial reader who has read (which Mr Musicant evidently has not) the > complete record (in context) of the posts between Mr Holsztynski and me > should conclude that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has behaved much more > offensively toward me than I have in response toward him. Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has often expressed his absolute disrespect for me in every way as a human being (assuming that he would even regard me as one). My most charitable possible response would be to say that, as far as I can tell, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski tends to lack a realistic understanding of many facts in the world, including the limits of his own abilities. And I could say with certainty that Mr Holsztynski lacks any realistic understanding of me. --Nick |
> For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this thread. > > May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an attempt to improve > his ability to read and to comprehend English? I can't see the point where Wlod has said that you've written anything in this thread. What are you referring to? Dave. -- David Richerby Mouldy Transparent Puzzle (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an intriguing conundrum but you can see right through it and it's starting to grow mushrooms! |
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > > For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this thread. > > > > May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an attempt to improve > > his ability to read and to comprehend English? > > I can't see the point where Wlod has said that you've written anything in > this thread. What are you referring to? > > > Dave. Dave, if phony Nick were a bit more intelligent he would sit quiet. He is alluding to the allusion I made in this thread about his "Hitler-Fischer admirers" garbage which he indeed has posted in the other thread. I was wrong at the moment of writing about identifying the thread in which shallow Nick has posted his idiocy. And that is a proof for him that I have problems with English. I do have my problems with English but his misplaced "argument" just shows how stupid he is. Regards, Wlod PS. Despite my difficulties with English I've got in the past complements about my English here, at rgcm, about which Nick could only dream. ********************************** my strict stepmother english tongue -- wigglish a snake a fish the grammar-bird flying over the boundless melody of liquid phrases the hungry snake the slippery fish the bird of steel demands the grain the pearls the words english -- the rarefied mountain air english -- a rock on my chest wlodzimierz holsztynski, 1992-04-06 |
news:[email protected]... > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<LPr*[email protected] >... > > Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this thread. > > > > > > May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an attempt to improve > > > his ability to read and to comprehend English? > > > > I can't see the point where Wlod has said that you've written anything in > > this thread. What are you referring to? > > > > > > Dave. > > Dave, if phony Nick were a bit more intelligent he would > sit quiet. He is alluding to the allusion I made in this > thread about his "Hitler-Fischer admirers" garbage which > he indeed has posted in the other thread. I was wrong at > the moment of writing about identifying the thread in which > shallow Nick has posted his idiocy. And that is a proof for > him that I have problems with English. I do have my problems > with English but his misplaced "argument" just shows how stupid > he is. > > Regards, > > Wlod > > PS. Despite my difficulties with English I've got > in the past complements about my English here, at rgcm, > about which Nick could only dream. > > ********************************** Wlod, I am trying to remember just what the "Hitler-Fischer garbage" consists of (unfortunately, recent postings scroll off my news server fairly quickly). I don't know if this is responsive, but like Nick, I have noted some striking parallels between the personality structure of Fischer and of Hitler. Also parallels in the reactions of followers, an obvious one being that there is one group of Fischer fans who take every word he says as a true statement about the world, as opposed to being a reflection of a disordered mind. A mythic view of Hitler in his own day was that he was a profound thinker on all subjects on which he chose to deliver pronouncements: History, society, science (particularly biology), and art, for example. In connection with my comparison of the two men, just last night I came across a cautionary note in Paul Krugman's "The Great Unraveling" that has some relevance: "Drawing parallels does not mean claiming moral equivalence." Likewise, agreeing with Nick on a particular issue does not mean approval of his sometimes rude responses to other participants in this group. Bob |
message news:<[email protected] >... > "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote in > > message news:<LPr*[email protected]>... > > > Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this > > > > thread. May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an > > > > attempt to improve his ability to read and to comprehend English? > > > > > > I can't see the point where Wlod has said that you've written > > > anything in this thread. What are you referring to? I already have forwarded some references (not in this thread) to your E-mail. I may write more about it in public when I have the time to do so. > > Dave, if phony Nick were a bit more intelligent he would sit quiet. > > He is alluding to the allusion I made in this thread about his > > "Hitler-Fischer admirers" garbage which he indeed has posted in the other > > thread. I was wrong at the moment of writing about identifying the thread > > in which shallow Nick has posted his idiocy. And that is a proof for > > him that I have problems with English. I do have my problems with English > > but his misplaced "argument" just shows how stupid he is.... Mr. Musicant: First of all, I should mention that I have had no problems with communicating in cordial terms with Jerzy Ciruk, a writer here whose mother tongue (as far as I know) is Polish (like Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's). For the record, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has *not completely and accurately* described the *evident cases* (plural emphasised) of his *serious misreadings* of my writings here. And I would submit that what I (and some other readers of my acquaintance here) have described as Mr Holsztynski's evidently 'serious misreadings' is a quite charitable interpretation of his motives. Otherwise, the offensive nonsense that Mr Holsztynski has been writing about me personally in many of his 'responses' (In fact, some of my original post(s) to which he has 'responded' did *not* even address or mention Mr. Holsztynski at all.) should have to be characterised often as deliberate distortions or falsifications by him that were made in order to attack me personally. For the record, in at least two separate threads, Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy'), whom Mr Holsztynski has claimed to respect, seems to have done his best--in highly diplomatic terms--to convince Mr Holsztynski that he (Mr Holsztynski) has evidently seriously misread what I have written and drawn the wrong conclusions about me in writing his (offensive) responses. "I must take issue with your characterisation of Nick Bourbaki.... There are many things upon which Nick and I disagree, nonetheless, Nick should be treated with respect." --Simon (11 December 2003, writing to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) But Wlodzimierz Holsztynski seems unwilling to listen. I may write more later about Mr Holsztynski's evident misreadings of me. > I am trying to remember just what the "Hitler-Fischer garbage" consists of > (unfortunately, recent postings scroll off my news server fairly quickly). You don't just have to "try to remember" exactly what I wrote in the recent RGCM thread, "Aryeh Davidoff: Rene Chun supports Lev Khariton". I already have attempted to forward my relevant posts therein to your E-mail. You may choose to read *exactly* what I wrote in the context of the thread, or you may choose to accept what Mr Holsztynski may claim about it without making the effort to read the evidence for yourself. By the way, your apparently implied inability to read the Google archives of Usenet should comfort every troll here who makes a false statement about any matter that you would be unable to check. > I don't know if this is responsive, but like Nick, I have noted some > striking parallels between the personality structure of Fischer and > of Hitler. In the relevant RGCM thread, "Aryeh Davidoff: Rene Chun supports Lev Khariton": I wrote (22 January 2004): "So could Adolf Hitler, who often astonished other people by his phenomenal memory and his *apparent* expertise on many subjects." Then you responded (23 January 2004): "One of many notable parallels between the chessplayer (Fischer) and his hero (Hitler)." > Also parallels in the reactions of followers, an obvious one being that > there is one group of Fischer fans who take every word he says as a true > statement about the world, as opposed to being a reflection of a disordered > mind. A mythic view of Hitler in his own day was that he was a profound > thinker on all subjects on which he chose to deliver pronouncements: > History, society, science (particularly biology), and art, for example. Yes, you have just *expressed in other words* part of what I have written in the thread, "Aryeh Davidoff: Rene Chun supports Lev Khariton" (27 January 2004): "Here are some similarities among the responses to Adolf Hitler and Bobby Fischer by *some of their respective admirers* during each hero's lifetime: 1) Some minor, if not trivial, anecdotes have been cited, if not also embellished, as conclusive proof for each man's 'genius' for many fields. 2) Some of each man's banal utterances have been construed as evidence of his deeply penetrating insight and general profundity of thought. 3) Each man's sometimes outrageous behaviour has been rationalised and excused, which seems to facilitate even more of his outrageous behaviour." After I wrote that, as I recall, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote something in another thread (I don't recall his exact words at that time) denouncing the alleged "Hitler-Fischer admirers garbage" (to quote what he wrote above here). So I concluded that Mr Holsztynski had again evidently seriously misread what I had written. Hence, I wrote this note of clarification (*without mentioning Mr Holsztynski by his name*) in the original thread, "Aryeh Davidoff: Rene Chun supports Lev Khariton" (31 January 2004): "If someone has difficulty in reading that statement (what I cited above), it means that some of Bobby Fischer's admirers have an evident attitude toward Fischer similar to that evident attitude that some of Adolf Hitler's admirers had toward Hitler. Of course, it does *not* imply that Fischer's admirers and Hitler's admirers must be (or have been) all the same people. No reasonably literate reader of English should misconstrue it in that way; but this is Usenet, so I write this." Unfortunately, my note of clarification seems to have failed to help Mr Holsztynski understand any more clearly what I had written previously. I don't know for certain exactly how Mr Holsztynski has misread what I wrote, but it seems quite clear to me that he has misread it and that he continues to misunderstand (or to distort) it in his public comments about it: "The low class (simply idiotic elaborations) about alleged admiration for Fischer+Hitler (what a nonsense! ..." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (4 February 2004, in this thread) That sounds like another characteristic 'proof by assertion' by Mr Holsztynski. My impression (which is shared by some other readers here who can recall Mr Holsztynski's record of abusive personal attacks against me) is that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has such a deep ad hominem prejudice against me that he can hardly make any intellectually honest effort to read carefully what I have written and attempt to understand my writings as texts on their own. "I've been enjoying your (my) scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc." --Larry Tapper (writing to me) By the way, I do *not* necessarily disagree with everything that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has written. For instance, Mr Holsztynski and I seem to concur in general on *some matters* about Mikhail Botvinnik. > In connection with my comparison of the two men, just last night I came > across a cautionary note in Paul Krugman's "The Great Unraveling" that has > some relevance: "Drawing parallels does not mean claiming moral equivalence." As far as I can tell, several of my friends who read or write in the chess newsgroups (and who don't necessarily agree with me on every issue) would agree, however, that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and I should *not* be regarded as 'moral equivalents', let alone as 'literary equivalents', as writers here. For instance, someone wrote to me recently: "There are many **** in Usenet (like Wlod Holsztynski), but should we be like them?" "The general tenor of your (my) posts has been so heartwarmingly human and winningly intelligent." --Jerome Bibuld (writing to me) "Nick, Thank you....I am glad to see posters like you." --Susan Polgar (writing to me) Mr Musicant, perhaps you should reconsider whether or not you should support your friend, Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski, who evidently makes a routine habit of denouncing other persons as 'idiots' (or worse) even when it could be clearly shown that he has been wrong. > Likewise, agreeing with Nick on a particular issue does not mean approval > of his sometimes rude responses to other participants in this group. Mr Robert Musicant's evident refusal to comment on, let alone to criticise, Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's record of abusive comments here has been noted. 'Qui tacet consentit' means 'who remains silent gives consent'. As far as I can tell, Mr Musicant, you seem to take at least the evidently implied position that your friend, Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has *not* been rude, let alone offensive, to anyone else in the chess newsgroups. "I have never insulted anybody." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski Mr Musicant, you may prefer to turn a completely blind eye to Mr Holsztynski's ample record of abusive comments in the chess newsgroups, yet I suspect that only the most inexperienced, naive, or ignorant readers here will have failed to notice at least some of them. Indeed, some readers here evidently even have begun to bet on predicting Mr Holsztynski's next insult. In the RGCM thread, "Lev Khariton: Karpov withdraws in Benidorm" (5 December 2003), Andreas Walkenhorst wrote to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski: "Wlod, you just made me win some bucks, as I after reading Kharitons article I had a bet with a friend that you were unable to avoid spitting out *another insult on Karpov*." In the thread, "Todd E. Flambers is just a troll" (March 2003), Wlodzimierz Holsztynski, who was writing to defend Sam Sloan against some criticism by Matt Nemmers, repeatedly used the term, "matt idiot(s)" in several of his posts as a derogatory reference to Matt Nemmers. Then Mark Houlsby wrote to defend Matt Nemmers. Mr Holsztynski did not apologise. Although Matt Nemmers and I have disagreed on some issues, I have much more personal respect for him than I have for Sam Sloan or Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. "I believe you're an intelligent individual, and I respect your opinions." --Matt Nemmers (writing to me) As I already have mentioned, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has a record of evidently misreading and seriously misunderstanding what I have written. One of these cases emerged out of a dispute about the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet War, wherein my position (Stalin was at least partly responsible for the Soviet defeat) was supported by Norman Davies, an eminent British historian of Poland, and other academic historians. Mr Holsztynski responded by curtly dismissing the view of Norman Davies and by personally attacking me, as though what I had written could be taken as a slur against the national honour of Poland. So I concluded that Mr Holsztynski was beyond reasonable or civilised discussion on at least some issues about Polish nationalism, and I stopped responding to him. But Mr Holsztynski did not stop his offensive personal attacks against me. Later, in the thread, "Relevant details" (created by Michael Adams), Wlodzimierz Holsztynski continued with another of his personal attacks against me, even though I *never wrote anything* in that thread. Here's a link to a post by Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy'), who generally agreed with what I have written about the Polish-Soviet War (and disagreed with what Mr Holsztynski has written about it), in response to another of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's personal attacks against me in the thread, "Relevant details" (11 December 2003): http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y2C221457 For the record, I have *not* lied about Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (as usual for him, he cited no evidence in support of his many accusations against me), though Mr Holsztynski has a record of making distorted or false statements (which, to be charitable again, might have been based partly on his evident serious misreadings of what I have written) in relation to me. "I must take issue with your characterisation of Nick Bourbaki. I believe his views to be sincerely held even when they differ from mine or yours. You are quite rightly proud of your heritage, nonetheless, I have to broadly agree with Nick in his assessment of the importance of the Battle of Warsaw.... Nick and I also agree that Stalin bears some of the responsibility for the Soviet defeat...(which Mr Holsztynski has vehemently disputed in personally denouncing me)...There are many things upon which Nick and I disagree, nonetheless, Nick should be treated with respect." --Simon (11 December 2003, writing to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) Please also read Mark Houlsby's response to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski in the thread, "Revelant details" (7 December 2003). More recently, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has written another ludicrous personal attack in a baseless troll thread (created by Mike Murray) against me, accusing me of being an anti-Semite. His post is full of nonsense and falsehoods: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W17242457 Then Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy') wrote a highly diplomatic response: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V28224457 Simon attempted to convince (though apparently unsuccessfully) Wlodzimierz Holsztynski that he (Mr Holsztynski) was seriously misreading what I had written elsewhere as criticism of Israel (or Zionism) in evidently applying his own more familiar cultural and linguistic context of old Eastern Europe under Communism. As far as Simon (or I) could tell, Mr Holsztynski seems to equate someone who's critical of Israel or opposed to Zionism (an 'anti-Zionist') with being an anti-Semite. That might have been true (or might still be true) for Eastern Europe under Communism. Unlike Mr Holsztynski, however, I did not grow up in old Eastern Europe under Communism, and so I was not too informed about Mr Holsztynski's specific preferred cultural and linguistic context. Moreover, I am writing in English today (not Polish or Russian) for an international audience of readers, most of whom presumably should not be expected to apply the same old East European frame of reference that seems more comfortable for Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. "I can only repeat that in Western Europe being anti-Zionist is *not* the same as being anti-Semitic." --Simon (31 January 2004, writing to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) Whether Mr Holsztynski will ever believe that remains to be seen. "Simon, you may call Nick an idiot, but I say that he showed hiomself (sic) idiotic also antisemitically." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (30 January 2004) Mr Holsztynski's assertion about me has two falsehoods. 1) There's no evidence whatsoever that Simon ('chapman Billy') has ever called me an 'idiot' (or a comparable term of abuse). But there *is* enough evidence to show that, even though we may disagree on some issues, Simon does think highly of my writings here: "He (I) is a welcome regular contributor to this group." "Your (my) posts are amongst the most rewarding in RGCM, even though we do differ on some things." "Nick should be treated with respect." --Simon ('chapman Billy') 2) I am not an anti-Semite, and no one (whether Jewish or not) who knows me in person believes that. By the way, in the thread, "Mendheim et al" (21 July 2003), I recommended several books on Jewish studies that I have read, including 'Cultures of the Jews: A New History' edited by David Biale (about 1200 pages). I would submit that someone, like myself, who would read a 1200 page book by Jewish scholars on Jewish cultures for his or her own intellectual enjoyment is quite unlikely to be an anti-Semite. "A Neo-Nazy (evidently a reference to Rolf Tueschen) starts his dirt. Some people object. And phony Nick is quick with attacking personally those who object." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (30 January 2004) In his response, Simon asked Mr Holsztynski if he could cite any evidence that I had ever supported Rolf Tueschen, and Mr Holsztynski provided none. "I can recall no post where he (I) provided any comfort to Tueschen." --Simon (31 January 2003, writing to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) Indeed, Mr Holsztynski has written another falsehood about me by placing me on the wrong side--opposite to my true position--of the Rolf Tueschen battle. For the record, I *did* object to Rolf Tueschen's prima facie anti-Semitism in creating his thread, "Being a Jew and a Liar". In his response, Rolf Tueschen 'flamed' me in the thread, "Rubinstein's Wartime Experiences (OT)" (27 November 2003). Then Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") and Lance Smith ("Liam Too"), who had been writing in Rolf Tueschen's defence (as Simon and I can recall), made several trolling attacks against me *because I had criticised Rolf Tueschen*. "I know that Rolf (Tueschen) is a very nice guy.... I would pick Rolf over Nick any day." --Lance Smith (4 December 2003) So Simon (who was on our side against Rolf Tueschen) and Greg Kennedy and Lance Smith (who were on Rolf Tueschen's side then) all seem to have agreed that I was on the side against Rolf Tueschen. But Wlodzimierz Holsztynski either refuses to recognise that fact, or else he prefers to distort it in order to attack me. "So, I am spitting virtually in his (my) face. It is as good as for real, and even better. I don't need any violence. Spitting virtually in his (my) cowardish face is good enough." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (30 January 2004, writing to Simon about me) As far as I can tell *so far* (and I hope that you may give me enough reasons to change my perceptions of you), Mr Musicant, you seem to find nothing wrong with what your friend, Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski, does whenever he writes distorted or false statements about me, often in quite abusive terms, and even when he makes a public threat of 'virtual' violence (above) against me. But you seem quick to take offence on behalf of Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski when I have responded to his many offensive (not to mention false) comments about me by suggesting (though with some sarcasm understandably added) that Mr Holsztynski should 'attempt to improve his ability to read and comprehend' what I write here. By the way, Simon already has attempted at least twice in a highly diplomatic manner to convince Mr Holsztynski that he should learn to read English more carefully and to treat me with respect, yet his efforts-- which I do much appreciate--seem to have failed to convince Mr Holsztynski. With regard to your evident moral judgments about Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and me, may I suggest that your set of 'double standards' hardly need any polishing? Some other readers here already have noticed it. I do *not* treat every writer here with equal respect because I do *not* believe that every writer here deserves it. I do make a sharp distinction between the generally honest (even though sometimes foolish) writers here (whether I tend to agree or disagree with them) and the trolls who insist on distorting what I write or making false statements about it in order to attack me personally. I do have much less respect for those trolls. It's well-known here that, for instance, Jerome Bibuld and Matt Nemmers have major political differences and a hostile relationship as writers. Although I have disagreed with both of them in public on some different issues, I always have been able to communicate with both of them in civil, if not cordial, terms. As far as I know, neither Mr Bibuld nor Mr Nemmers has ever deliberately distorted what I have written or made any false statements about it or me. As long as any other writer here can avoid distorting or lying about my writings, I tend to have no difficulty in treating him or her with respect. Please read carefully what I have written. Thanks. --Nick |
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in > message news:<[email protected]>... > > "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote in > > > message news:<LPr*[email protected]>... > > > > Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this > > > > > thread. May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an > > > > > attempt to improve his ability to read and to comprehend English? > > > > > > > > I can't see the point where Wlod has said that you've written > > > > anything in this thread. What are you referring to? > > I already have forwarded some references (not in this thread) to your E-mail. > I may write more about it in public when I have the time to do so. > > > > Dave, if phony Nick were a bit more intelligent he would sit quiet. > > > He is alluding to the allusion I made in this thread about his > > > "Hitler-Fischer admirers" garbage which he indeed has posted in the other > > > thread. I was wrong at the moment of writing about identifying the thread > > > in which shallow Nick has posted his idiocy. And that is a proof for > > > him that I have problems with English. I do have my problems with English > > > but his misplaced "argument" just shows how stupid he is.... > > Mr. Musicant: > > First of all, I should mention that I have had no problems with communicating > in cordial terms with Jerzy Ciruk, a writer here whose mother tongue (as > far as I know) is Polish (like Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's). > > For the record, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has *not completely and accurately* > described the *evident cases* (plural emphasised) of his *serious misreadings* > of my writings here. And I would submit that what I (and some other readers > of my acquaintance here) have described as Mr Holsztynski's evidently > 'serious misreadings' is a quite charitable interpretation of his motives. > > Otherwise, the offensive nonsense that Mr Holsztynski has been writing about > me personally in many of his 'responses' (In fact, some of my original post(s) > to which he has 'responded' did *not* even address or mention Mr. Holsztynski > at all.) should have to be characterised often as deliberate distortions or > falsifications by him that were made in order to attack me personally. > > For the record, in at least two separate threads, Simon Spivack ('chapman > Billy'), whom Mr Holsztynski has claimed to respect, seems to have done his > best--in highly diplomatic terms--to convince Mr Holsztynski that he > (Mr Holsztynski) has evidently seriously misread what I have written and > drawn the wrong conclusions about me in writing his (offensive) responses. > > "I must take issue with your characterisation of Nick Bourbaki.... > There are many things upon which Nick and I disagree, nonetheless, > Nick should be treated with respect." > --Simon (11 December 2003, writing to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) > > But Wlodzimierz Holsztynski seems unwilling to listen. > <snip > Nick, Point taken. Criticism of rudeness on your part should not be taken to imply approval of Wlod's toward you. I think you both have it wrong. I see honest differences of opinion getting blown up beyond all reason into accusations of bad faith. Having broken my personal guideline to stay out of any discussion of personalities on Usenet, I now bow out and leave the floor to you. Bob |
news:<[email protected] >... > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > > Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this > > > > > > thread. May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an > > > > > > attempt to improve his ability to read and to comprehend English? (much snipped) > > First of all, I should mention that I have had no problems with > > communicating in cordial terms with Jerzy Ciruk, a writer here whose mother > > tongue (as far as I know) is Polish (like Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's). > > > > For the record, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has *not completely and accurately* > > described the *evident cases* (plural emphasised) of his *serious > > misreadings* of my writings here. And I would submit that what I (and some > > other readers of my acquaintance here) have described as Mr Holsztynski's > > evidently 'serious misreadings' is a quite charitable interpretation of his > > motives. > > > > Otherwise, the offensive nonsense that Mr Holsztynski has been writing > > about me personally in many of his 'responses' (In fact, some of my > > original post(s) to which he has 'responded' did *not* even address or > > mention Mr. Holsztynski at all.) should have to be characterised often as > > deliberate distortions or falsifications by him that were made in order to > > attack me personally. > > > > For the record, in at least two separate threads, Simon Spivack ('chapman > > Billy'), whom Mr Holsztynski has claimed to respect, seems to have done > > his best--in highly diplomatic terms--to convince Mr Holsztynski that he > > (Mr Holsztynski) has evidently seriously misread what I have written and > > drawn the wrong conclusions about me in writing his (offensive) responses. > > > > "I must take issue with your characterisation of Nick Bourbaki.... > > There are many things upon which Nick and I disagree, nonetheless, > > Nick should be treated with respect." > > --Simon (11 December 2003, writing to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) > > > > But Wlodzimierz Holsztynski seems unwilling to listen. > > <snip> (by Bob Musicant) > > Nick, Point taken. As far as I can tell, Bob Musicant seems to be a loyal friend of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. > Criticism of rudeness on your part should not be taken to > imply approval of Wlod's toward you. Contrary to what Bob Musicant has implied (above) in his partial defence, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski also has an ample record of abusive comments here against persons other than me. The evidence is in the Google archives. I note also that Bob Musicant has criticised (in two posts) my alleged 'rudeness' toward Mr Holsztynski, but Mr Musicant has *not* criticised (though he belatedly has claimed that he does not necessarily approve of it) anything about Mr Holszytnski's many offensive comments toward me. On one hand, I have suggested (above) that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski 'make an attempt to improve his ability to read and to comprehend English'. Evidently, both Mr Holsztynski and Mr Musicant regard my suggestion--each each of them has criticised it--as quite offensive to Mr Holsztynski. On the other hand, Wlozimierz Holsztynski has been writing personal attacks against me such as: "...I am spitting virtually in his (my) face. It is as good as for real, and even better. I don't need any violence. Spitting virtually in his (my) cowardish face is good enough." (30 January 2004) As far as I know, Mr Musicant has declined to criticise Mr Holsztynski. > I think you both have it wrong. I see honest differences of opinion > getting blown up beyond all reason into accusations of bad faith. But Bob Musicant evidently has admitted that he has *not* read the complete record (in context) of the posts between or about Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and me, and that Mr Musicant lacks any interest in reading all that evidence for himself. Hence, I would submit that Bob Musicant is not sufficiently qualified, even if he could be impartial, to make a conclusive judgement about this dispute. > Having broken my personal guideline to stay out of any discussion of > personalities on Usenet, I now bow out and leave the floor to you. Mr Musicant, your belated assertion that you have a 'personal guideline to stay out of any discussion of personalities on Usenet' could seem plausible enough for me only if I were to disregard this evidence. 1) You were quick to criticise me personally *twice* for allegedly being 'rude' in responding to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. 2) After I cited some, though far from all, of the evidence of Mr Holsztynski's many abusive comments and false statements about me personally, you suddenly invoked a 'personal guideline' (or a 'moral principle'?) that you prefer to avoid discussing 'personalities on Usenet'. How convenient for you. As I recall, Mr Musicant, you have described yourself as a lawyer, and I have no reason to doubt that you would be a competent one. As far as I can tell, you seem to have done what you could to 'spin' the facts of the dispute here on the behalf of Mr Holsztynski. After I cited some of the incontrovertible evidence of Mr Holsztynski's record of abusive misbehaviour, you seem to have realised that arguing your case any further for him (if that's what it was) would lose in the end. Hence, like any able lawyer in that position, now you seem to be demanding, in effect, "Let's ignore all the evidence and just dismiss the whole thing." Mr Musicant, I have to say that your 'double standards' toward the extremely offensive misbehaviour of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and my responses (citing some, though not all, of the evidence of his many abuses) are still quite evident to me. --Nick |
wrote in message news: <[email protected] >... > Wlod, > I am trying to remember just what the "Hitler-Fischer garbage" > consists of (unfortunately, recent postings scroll off my news > server fairly quickly). Bob, the issue of that other thread was whether or not Fischer was profound in the past. The Fischer-Hitler analogy might be as true as 2+2=4 (of course analogies are never that waterproof) but introducing it to that thread was a low thing to do on Nick's part. His goal was not to get a deeper insight into the discussed question of Fischer profundity (or of the lack of it). Instead, all I can say is that either he has his ulterior motives, and it very strongly looks like he does write in a dishonest manner, or he is so stupid that he does it without meaning it. Either way, his writing was highly unsympathetic and insensitive. Indeed, I was the one who claimed the Fischer's profundity. Nick has changed the topic, and suddenly writes about Fischer admirers and Hitler admirers, he does it in a muddy manner, which amounts to innuendo. He didn't add any light on the Fischer's issue as such, one way or the other. He did something similar in the past when he managed to include in the same sentence my name and South African apartheid. He thinks that he is clever, but these are slimy, dirty methods, and that's why I am virtually spitting in his face. There are things that one should not do. The childish Internet encounters are not a reason for this kind of ugly behavior. I was annoyed on rgcm many times in the past, that's why I didn't bother to participate or to continue to participate in some threads; and the same is happening now, except that our hipocritical ("clever") Nick is adding an extra unesthetic dimension to the common Internet episodes. It is a pity, because the topic we had was interesting. We were touching upon such mind characteristics as memory, the speed of thinking (reflex), originality, inventiveness, ... and all of them, while related to, are still different from profoundness. And we could add intuition too. And it would be interesting to compare Fischer to other great chess players, especially to the modern ones. Then we would get a good reference. But it makes little sense for me to continue the topic when a phony Nick is just attempting to wipe his quick and prolific mouth with my name. When his garbage writing suggests that the discussion partner is a Fischer admirer (I am not, but even if I were, it would be still not constructive to switch from discussion topic onto the discussion partner) or by an extension, that that discussion partner is as good as Hitler's admirer. It is funny when the poor, always intensively self-advertising Nicky claims that I don't understand what he writes, when I do way better than he himself. BTW, I was saying that Fischer was profound also outside of the chess BOARD, but I didn't mean outside of the chess world. The thinking about the issues of the chess WORLD (not the game itself, like applying Sam Sloan's g7-g5 against Spasski in Alechine) is general/universal enough. Best regards, Wlod PS. This is another illustration showing that it is not only what one says but also when. The words and statements exist in their context. |
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> > wrote in message news: > <[email protected]>... > > > Wlod, > > I am trying to remember just what the "Hitler-Fischer garbage" > > consists of (unfortunately, recent postings scroll off my news > > server fairly quickly). > > Bob, > > the issue of that other thread was whether or not Fischer > was profound in the past. The Fischer-Hitler analogy might > be as true as 2+2=4 (of course analogies are never > that waterproof) but introducing it to that thread > was a low thing to do on Nick's part. <snip > Wlod, I disagree. As I wrote to Nick in a nearby message, "I think you both have it wrong. I see honest differences of opinion getting blown up beyond all reason into accusations of bad faith." Bob |
> "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > >>"Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> >>wrote in message news: >><[email protected]>... >> >> >>>Wlod, >>>I am trying to remember just what the "Hitler-Fischer garbage" >>>consists of (unfortunately, recent postings scroll off my news >>>server fairly quickly). >> >>Bob, >> >>the issue of that other thread was whether or not Fischer >>was profound in the past. The Fischer-Hitler analogy might >>be as true as 2+2=4 (of course analogies are never >>that waterproof) but introducing it to that thread >>was a low thing to do on Nick's part. > > <snip> > > Wlod, > > I disagree. As I wrote to Nick in a nearby message, "I think you both > have it wrong. I see honest differences of opinion getting blown up beyond > all reason into accusations of bad faith." > > Bob > > Excellent posts, Bob. Hopefully both Wlod and Nick will return to focussing on their (generally very good) substantive posting on this group and abandon their (generally very silly) personal squabbles. John |
> > > > [...] > > Excellent posts, Bob. Hopefully both Wlod and Nick will return to > focussing on their (generally very good) substantive posting on this > group and abandon their (generally very silly) personal squabbles. > > John Bob & John, step by step Nick is succeeding in false labeling me one way or another: troll, chauvinist, Zionist, ... I am no such thing. You may rightly say that the last word, Zionist, is just a word like "engineer", and not a negative epitethet, but every word, including "Zionist" and "engineer" can be used as an epithet, and that's what Nick was doing to me and to some other participants. Observe that calling someone a "Zionist" is equivalent to ethnic slur. Observe that a post WWII typical anti-Semitic method of abusing Jews is to equate them with the Hitler's degenerates-- and here comes Nick and tries to make here "cleverly" disguised "logical" line of abuse: an acknowledgement of Fischer's intellect = Fisher admirer = Hitler admirer and if you follow some of his other posts, then he hopes that you will get also ... = Hitler admirer = Zionist = whoever can see that Nick is stupid Now you see the difference, the lack of symmetry between Nick's impoliteness and my diagnosis of his intellectual "strength". He's calling people names recklessly under the pretext that his name calling is related to the topic of the discussion, while I am saying it straigh: Nick is shallow and in the ways seen from his posts, he is stupid. When it comes to the contributions to rgcm, and I don't claim much credit, the difference is in our goals. My goal is to get the truth, his goal is to use the topic as a pretext to tell us that he has "academic friends". Well, I am an "academic friend" myself, I don't waste bandwidth--like Nick, on and on--to convince anybody about my abilities. I do care about discussions, learning, sharing, making a point, and I like to have fun too. And that's harder and harder when an anonymous, cowardly idiot tries to smear your name. Then politeness and manners, while still advisable, become somewhat secondary. Polite language and culture are correlated but only a little. What Nick does is often way worse and lower that, say, usage of four letter words (and I don't go that far :-) Best regards, Wlod |
evidently continues to have difficulties with reading and comprehending what I write in English, and unfortunately he seems unwilling to listen to anyone else (such as Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy')) who has advised him that he has been evidently misreading what I write and jumping to the wrong conclusions. Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote: > ...while I am saying it straigh: Nick is shallow and > in the ways seen from his posts, he is stupid. Here are some comments about my posts here from a broad variety of readers: Jerome Bibuld: "The general tenor of your posts has been so heartwarmingly human and winningly intelligent." Bill Brock: "Bravo. I concur with all your major points." Jerzy Ciruk: "You are absolutely right." (about the Soviet media's coverage of Kasparov) Mark Houlsby: "Nick's post is typically lucid and balanced." Phil Innes: "Nick, you are a fair writer." John Macnab: "Great story! Thanks." Matt Nemmers: "I believe you're an intelligent individual and I respect your opinions." Susan Polgar: "Nick, Thank you....I am glad to see posters like you." Simon Spivack: "Your posts are amongst the most rewarding in RGCM, even though we do differ on some things." Larry Tapper: "I've been enjoying your scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc." > (snipped) > Polite language and culture are correlated but only a little. "Use of language, like taste in reading, is a sure guide to character in Jane Austen's world." --Josephine Ross (Jane Austen: A Companion, p. 112) > What Nick does is often way worse and lower that, say, usage > of four letter words (and I don't go that far :-) "So, I am spitting virtually in his (my) face. It as good as for real, and even better. I don't need any violence. Spitting virtually in his (my) cowardish face is good enough." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (30 January 2004, writing to Simon Spivack about me) "I must take issue with your characterisation of Nick Bourbaki.... There are many things upon which Nick and I disagree, nonetheless, Nick should be treated with respect." --Simon Spivack (writing to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) "One point which you appear that you might have missed: It is impossible for anyone to make you look bad per se. Anyone who tried would simply make himself (or herself) look bad. When you write about mathematics, you write with authority....In stark contrast, when you write about the Middle East, and about Israel's situation, you are, by your own admission, 'no expert'. The reason why you look bad with respect to this rather complex historical/political/economic question is that you make *yourself* look bad--you do this by betraying your ignorance left and right, by making wild and unsupportable pro-Israeli claims, by making ad hominem attacks on folks who have, by oliterating your ignorant arguments, pointed out that you have made *yourself* look bad. My advice to you is: confine yourself to writing about subjects with respect to which you are, undoubtedly, an expert. That way, you'll avoid *making yourself look like a trolling idiot*, just as you've done, in this thread, again." (the asterisks were Mr Houlsby's in his original post) --Mark Houlsby (7 December 2003, 'Relevant details', writing to Mr Holsztynski) --Nick |
news:<GK6Wb.461873$X%5.329661@pd7tw2no >... > Bob Musicant wrote to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski: > > "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Bob Musicant wrote: > > > > I am trying to remember just what the "Hitler-Fischer garbage" > > > > consists of (unfortunately, recent postings scroll off my news > > > > server fairly quickly). As far as I can tell, unfortunately, Bob Musicant seems to have implied that he cannot read the older posts that have been archived on Google. > > > the issue of that other thread was whether or not Fischer was profound in > > > the past. The Fischer-Hitler analogy might be as true as 2+2=4 (of course > > > analogies are never that waterproof) but introducing it to that thread > > > was a low thing to do on Nick's part. > > > > Wlod, I disagree. As I wrote to Nick in a nearby message, "I think you > > both have it wrong. I see honest differences of opinion getting blown up > > beyond all reason into accusations of bad faith." > > Excellent posts, Bob. Hopefully both Wlod and Nick will return to > focussing on their (generally very good) substantive posting on this > group and abandon their (generally very silly) personal squabbles. Dear Mr Macnab: With all due respect to you and Bob Musicant (who seems to have implied that he cannot read the older posts that have been archived on Google), as far as I can tell, neither of you seem to have read (and thus been able to remember accurately) the complete record--in chronological order and relevant context-- of the many posts pertaining to the disputes between Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and me. Of course, I lack the time and the space to recapitulate everything that's been written about it. So I would submit that you and Bob Musicant should keep in mind that there may be relevant evidence that you have not read or that you do not remember *before* you attempt to draw any more conclusions. On the other hand, there are a few readers here (as they have informed me) who attempt to read about every post that I write here and about every post here in supposed response to my writings or to me personally. As far as I can tell, those readers seem to have placed substantially more of the blame on Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski than on me. Here's one significant difference (of many) between Mr Holsztynski and me that you might have overlooked: I have *attempted* to limit my responses to the evidence of Mr Holsztynski's writings here and any reasonable inferences that can be made from them. For example, Mr Holsztynski (who has written, "I am not any historian, not even an amateur historian.") has made at least several ignorant assertions, in his characteristically vehement terms, about history that most academic historians of my knowledge would dispute. I (and some other writers here, such as Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy')) have *cited specific evidence* to show that Mr Holsztynski's assertions--which he tends to 'support' by making ad hominem attacks, particularly against me--were ignorant or unfounded. Perhaps Mr Holsztynski tends to misconstrue any criticism of his 'ideas on history' as a personal attack against him. Please note that I have *not* made any comments about Mr Holsztynski's conduct of his personal life because I have no evidence about how he tends to treat other people in his 'real life'. But Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has *repeatedly* made unwarranted, inflammatory, and false accusations against me personally, even though he could hardly know any facts whatsoever about me in 'real life'. It *is* true that his personal accusations about me are all 'very silly' (to borrow your phrase), but is it necessarily also harmless that Mr Holsztynski should continue to make them? For example, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has been writing (most recently on 10 February 2004) in the baseless troll thread, "Nick's Bigotry" (created by Mike Murray), in repeated evident efforts to convince Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy') and other readers, if they are ignorant and gullible enough, that I must be an anti-Semite. (Yes, as far as I know, I expect that you would oppose both the creation of that troll thread and the accusations that have been made against me in it.) In doing so, Mr Holsztynski seems determined to ignore (or perhaps to distort) what Simon already has written about it. "I don't believe Nick Bourbaki is anti-Semitic." --Simon Spivack (30 January 2003) "I can only repeat that in Western Europe being anti-Zionist is not the same as being anti-Semitic." --Simon Spivack (31 January 2003) "I must take issue with your characterisation of Nick Bourbaki.... There are many things upon which Nick and I disagree, nonetheless, Nick should be treated with respect." --Simon Spivack (11 December 2003, writing to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) I can understand that you might well lack the time and patience to read the complete record of the posts pertaining to the disputes between Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and me. I can also understand your hope that the 'flame war' between Mr Holsztynski and me will end soon. But, with all due respect, I would submit that there has *not* been an equivalent balance of right and wrong in the relations between Mr Holsztynski and me as writers here. --Nick |
>10 February 2004) in the baseless troll thread, "Nick's Bigotry" >(created by Mike Murray), in repeated evident efforts to > convince Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy') and other readers, > if they are ignorant and gullible enough, that I must be an > anti-Semite. Correction. The thread was entitled "Nick's Bigotry", not "Nick's Anti-Semitism." The bigotry or prejudice of which I accused Nick was exemplified by his equating opposition to anti-Semitism as evidence of Zionism. Merriam-Webster defines bigot as: " a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." Which certainly seems to match the way many posters have come to regard Nick. As to whether he may *also* be anti-Semitic, I acknowledge that Simon and Wlod have differing opinions. |
> On 10 Feb 2004 16:58:31 -0800, [email protected] (Nick) wrote: Here's the *relevant first part of my sentence*, which Mike Murray *snipped*. "For example, *Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has been writing* (most recently on > > 10 February 2004) in the baseless troll thread, "Nick's Bigotry" > > (created by Mike Murray), in repeated evident efforts to convince > > Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy') and other readers, if they are > > ignorant and gullible enough, that I must be an anti-Semite. Hence, *now* one may read in *the complete sentence* that *the subject of my sentence* was Wlodzimierz Holsztynski, and that my comment in the predicate of my sentence about his "repeated evident efforts to convince...other readers, if they are ignorant and gullible enough, that I must be an anti-Semite" pertains to what *"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has been writing"*. I mentioned that Mike Murray created the baseless troll thread in order toclarify that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski was *not* responsible for doing that. > Correction. > The thread was entitled "Nick's Bigotry", not "Nick's Anti-Semitism." Several readers here have informed me that they regard what Mike Murray did as having created a baseless troll thread--with an inflammatory title including my name specifically in it--with the evident intent of planting the false notion that I am an anti-Semite among any ignorant and gullible readers here. > The bigotry or prejudice of which I accused Nick was exemplified by > his equating opposition to anti-Semitism as evidence of Zionism. For the record, I do *not* regard all Zionists as alike. I am (or have been) acquainted with a variety of Israelis, and I have much greater respect for, say, the late Israel Shahak, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League of Human Rights (also a survivor of the Belsen concentration camp), whom I met, than, say, for the late Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 (unarmed) Palestinians at prayer in a mosque. Here's an article by Yitzhak Frankenthal, another Zionist whom I respect and admire: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,770326,00.html Here's a link to the Israeli website of "The Parent's Circle", an organisation that was founded by Yitzhak Frankenthal to attempt to bring together both Israeli and Palestinian bereaved families who have lost a family member: http://www.theparentscircle.com/parents/default.asp > Merriam-Webster defines bigot as: > " a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own > opinions and prejudices." > > Which certainly seems to match the way many posters have come to > regard Nick. Several writers here of my acquaintance have let me know that they regard Mike Murray as a dishonest troll, and they have advised me that his trolling posts about me do *not* warrant any response from me beyond disdain. > As to whether he may *also* be anti-Semitic, I > acknowledge that Simon and Wlod have differing opinions. Here's what Mike Murray wrote on it (3 February 2004) in "Nick's Bigotry": > > Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy') wrote: > > > I don't believe Nick Bourbaki is anti-Semitic. > > Mike Murray then wrote: > > I don't believe he is either... --Nick |
>I mentioned that Mike Murray created the baseless troll thread >in order toclarify that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski was *not* >responsible for doing that. Good, good. We wouldn't want readers to think I was stealing Wlod's ideas. >> Correction. >> The thread was entitled "Nick's Bigotry", not "Nick's Anti-Semitism." >Several readers here have informed me that they regard what Mike >Murray did as having created a baseless troll thread--with an >inflammatory title including my name specifically in it--with >the evident intent of planting the false notion that I am an >anti-Semite among any ignorant and gullible readers here. While I wouldn't dispute that Nick is, indeed, "among any ignorant and gullible readers here", I wasn't including naive anti-Semitism among his many faults (see below). >> The bigotry or prejudice of which I accused Nick was exemplified by >> his equating opposition to anti-Semitism as evidence of Zionism. >For the record, I do *not* regard all Zionists as alike. Given where Nick has placed this comment, one assumes he's responding to the sentence above. If so, it seems consistent with his usual evasive practice of answering questions that weren't asked. I didn't claim he regarded all Zionists as alike. Nor did I make any claims about whether he personally *liked* some or all of them or disliked particular Zionist individuals. I simply claimed that one notable instance of his bigotry consisted in "equating opposition to anti-Semitism as evidence of Zionism." The reader will note that Nick doesn't touch that one. > I am >(or have been) acquainted with a variety of Israelis, and I have >much greater respect for, say, the late Israel Shahak, a professor >at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the >Israeli League of Human Rights (also a survivor of the Belsen >concentration camp), whom I met, than, say, for the late Baruch >Goldstein, who murdered 29 (unarmed) Palestinians at prayer in a >mosque. Why, gee, that's mighty nice of Nick, and I'm sure Shahak would have been flattered to know that Nick holds him in higher regard than a mass-murderer and terrorist. Kinda like saying "I am (or have been) acquainted with a variety of people on the American political right, and I have much greater respect for, say, the late Barry Goldwater than, say, the late Timothy McVeigh." >Here's an article by Yitzhak Frankenthal, another Zionist whom >I respect and admire: >http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,770326,00.html >Here's a link to the Israeli website of "The Parent's Circle", an >organisation that was founded by Yitzhak Frankenthal to attempt to >bring together both Israeli and Palestinian bereaved families who >have lost a family member: >http://www.theparentscircle.com/parents/default.asp Why, yes, these seem like nice folks, Nick. But what about you? How do you relate to these links? >> Merriam-Webster defines bigot as: >> " a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own >> opinions and prejudices." >> Which certainly seems to match the way many posters have come to >> regard Nick. >Several writers here of my acquaintance have let me know that >they regard Mike Murray as a dishonest troll, and they have >advised me that his trolling posts about me do *not* warrant >any response from me beyond disdain. Evidently the anonymous Nick so little values the judgment of his anonymous acquaintances that he continues to ignore their advice and keeps posting. >> As to whether he may *also* be anti-Semitic, I >> acknowledge that Simon and Wlod have differing opinions. >Here's what Mike Murray wrote on it (3 February 2004) in >"Nick's Bigotry": >> > Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy') wrote: >> > > I don't believe Nick Bourbaki is anti-Semitic. >> Mike Murray then wrote: >> > I don't believe he is either... Evidently, Nick believes the two sentences he quotes to be contradictory. |
Also, it *adds some comments* that were not mentioned in that earlier post. Please address any response(s) to this post, not my misformatted earlier post. John Macnab <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<GK6Wb.461873$X%5.329661@pd7tw2no >... > Bob Musicant wrote to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski: > > "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Bob Musicant wrote: > > > > I am trying to remember just what the "Hitler-Fischer garbage" > > > > consists of (unfortunately, recent postings scroll off my news > > > > server fairly quickly). As far as I can tell, unfortunately, Bob Musicant seems to have implied that he cannot read the older posts that have been archived on Google. > > > the issue of that other thread was whether or not Fischer was profound in > > > the past. The Fischer-Hitler analogy might be as true as 2+2=4 (of course > > > analogies are never that waterproof) but introducing it to that thread > > > was a low thing to do on Nick's part. > > > > Wlod, I disagree. As I wrote to Nick in a nearby message, "I think you > > both have it wrong. I see honest differences of opinion getting blown up > > beyond all reason into accusations of bad faith." > > Excellent posts, Bob. Hopefully both Wlod and Nick will return to > focussing on their (generally very good) substantive posting on this > group and abandon their (generally very silly) personal squabbles. Dear Mr Macnab: With all due respect to you and Bob Musicant (who seems to have implied that he cannot read the older posts that have been archived on Google), as far as I can tell, neither of you seem to have read (and thus been able to remember accurately) the complete record--in chronological order and relevant context-- of the many posts pertaining to the disputes between Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and me. Of course, I lack the time and the space to recapitulate everything that's been written about it. So I would submit that you and Bob Musicant should keep in mind that there may be relevant evidence that you have not read or that you do not remember *before* you attempt to draw any more conclusions. On the other hand, there are a few readers here (as they have informed me) who attempt to read about every post that I write here and about every post here in supposed response to my writings or to me personally. As far as I can tell, those readers seem to have placed substantially more of the blame on Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski than on me. Here's one significant difference (of many) between Mr Holsztynski and me that you might have overlooked: (You might have noticed that I have consistently referred to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski by his full name or as 'Mr Holsztynski' while he has often, if not usually, referred to me as 'phony Nick' (or a similar pejorative term).) I have *attempted* to limit my responses to the evidence of Mr Holsztynski's writings here and any reasonable inferences that can be made from them. For example, Mr Holsztynski (who has written, "I am not any historian, not even an amateur historian.") has made at least several ignorant assertions, in his characteristically vehement terms, about history that most academic historians of my knowledge would dispute. I (and some other writers here, such as Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy')) have *cited specific evidence* to show that Mr Holsztynski's assertions--which he tends to 'support' by making ad hominem attacks, particularly against me--were ignorant or unfounded. Perhaps Mr Holsztynski tends to miscontrue any criticism of his 'ideas on history' as a personal attack against him. Please note that I have *not* made any comments about Mr Holsztynski's conduct of his personal life because I have no evidence about how he tends to treat other people in his 'real life'. But Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has *repeatedly* made unwarranted, inflammatory, and false accusations against me personally, even though he could hardly know any facts whatsoever about me in 'real life'. It *is* true that his personal accusations about me are all 'very silly' (to borrow your phrase), but is it necessarily also harmless that Mr Holsztynski should continue to make them? For example, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has been writing (most recently on 10 February 2004) in the baseless troll thread, "Nick's Bigotry" (created by Mike Murray), in repeated evident efforts to convince Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy') and other readers, if they are ignorant and gullible enough, that I must be an anti-Semite, more or less. (Yes, as far as I know, I expect that you would oppose both the creation of that troll thread and the accusations that have been made against me in it.) In doing so, Mr Holsztynski seems determined to ignore (or perhaps to distort) what Simon already has written about it. "I don't believe Nick Bourbaki is anti-Semitic." --Simon Spivack (30 January 2004) "I can only repeat that in Western Europe being anti-Zionist is not the same as being anti-Semitic." --Simon Spivack (31 January 2004) "I must take issue with your characterisation of Nick Bourbaki.... There are many things upon which Nick and I disagree, nonetheless, Nick should be treated with respect." --Simon Spivack (11 December 2003, writing to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) "Well, he (I) is not ('a decent human being')." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (10 February 2004, writing to Simon to attack me) Again, for the record, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski does *not* know me personally or professionally. But Mr Holsztynski has continued to write ignorant nonsense (such as my allegedly 'low IQ'; did Mr Holsztynski see my test results?) about me, including how he *imagines* that I relate to other people in 'real life'. "My advice to you is: confine yourself to writing about subjects with respect to which you are, undoubtedly, an expert. That way, you'll avoid making yourself look like a trolling idiot, just as you've done, in this thread, again." --Mark Houlsby (7 December 2003, 'Relevant details', writing to Mr Holsztynski) Undoubtedly, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski is unqualified to comment on my personal or professional life--about which he could hardly know any facts--and some other readers here have informed me that they believe that it's wrong for Mr Holsztynski to write about me in the unwarranted ignorant way that he does. I can understand that you might well lack the time and patience to read the complete record of the posts pertaining to the disputes between Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and me. I can also understand your hope that the 'flame war' between Mr Holsztynski and me will end soon. But, with all due respect, I would submit that there has *not* been an equivalent balance of right and wrong in the relations between Mr Holsztynski and me as writers here. --Nick |
message news:<[email protected] >... > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news: <[email protected]>... > > I am trying to remember just what the "Hitler-Fischer garbage" consists of > > (unfortunately, recent postings scroll off my news server fairly quickly). As far as I can tell, unfortunately, Bob Musicant seems to have implied that he cannot read the older posts that have been archived on Google. > the issue of that other thread was whether or not Fischer was > profound in the past. As far as I can tell from the recent thread, "Aryeh Davidoff: Rene Chun supports Lev Khariton" (please read the evidence for yourself), Bob Musicant and I agreed that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's supposed examples of "how profound is Fischer's mind is in general" (to quote Mr Holsztynski) were *unconvincing*. > The Fischer-Hitler analogy might be as true as 2+2=4 (of course analogies > are never that waterproof) but introducing it to that thread was a low thing > to do on Nick's part. "I disagree." --Bob Musicant (9 Feburary 2004, writing to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) (I have snipped much nonsense by Mr Holsztynski about my alleged motives.) > It is funny when the poor, always intensively self-advertising Nicky claims > that I don't understand what he writes, when I do way better than he himself. As far as I can tell, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski really seems to have convinced himself that he's far better at reading and comprehending, if not also writing, English than I. I expect that all of my (fluently English-speaking) scholarly acquaintances would be quite amused by Mr Holsztynski's 'expert opinion' of me, but I doubt that any of them would allow it to influence their professional judgments of my literary merits. :-) > BTW, I was saying that Fischer was profound also outside of the > chess BOARD, but I didn't mean outside of the chess world. "Fischer's great intellectual ability *goes way beyond chess*. It is scary that that such a wonderful mind can degenerate so bad." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (25 November 2003) Mr Holsztynski has the right to *change his evident original position* about "Fischer's great intellectual ability", but he should *not* criticise other readers for believing that he means *exactly what he writes here*. --Nick |
news:[email protected]... > [email protected] (Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in > message news:<[email protected]>... > > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news: <[email protected]>... > > > I am trying to remember just what the "Hitler-Fischer garbage" consists of > > > (unfortunately, recent postings scroll off my news server fairly quickly). > > As far as I can tell, unfortunately, Bob Musicant seems to have implied > that he cannot read the older posts that have been archived on Google. Nick, I can. And I do, if I consider the issue sufficiently important. Bob |
> > It is funny when the poor, always intensively > > self-advertising Nicky claims that I don't understand > > what he writes, when I do way better than he himself. > > As far as I can tell, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski really > seems to have convinced himself that he's far better > at reading and comprehending, if not also writing, > English than I. I expect that all of my (fluently > English-speaking) scholarly acquaintances would be > quite amused by Mr Holsztynski's 'expert opinion' of me, > but I doubt that any of them would allow it to influence > their professional judgments of my literary merits. :-) Those Nick's "friends/acquintances" ad nauseam. It doesn't take William Shakespeare to see through Nick's cheap tricks. And Nick's no Byron either. My explanation below is met by Nick once again by his abuse of quoting, via selective quoting, out of context, in bad faith, etrc. etc. etc. etc.: > > BTW, I was saying that Fischer was profound > > also outside of the chess BOARD, but I didn't > > mean outside of the chess world. Now Nick quotes me selectively, providing an irrelevant quote from two month ago (he has energy and time for such DIRTY manipulations). In a moment I'll supply the RELEVANT quote from the RELEVANT thread. Here's the irrelevant one: > "Fischer's great intellectual ability *goes way beyond chess*. > It is scary that that such a wonderful mind can degenerate so bad." > --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (25 November 2003) Yes, Fischer's **ability/profundity** IS universal, goes beyond the world of chess. There is no such thing as ability for the world of "chess minus the chess board". If one is able to see sharply issues in the world of chess (I mean the FIDE issues, the non-strictly-chessical factors, contributing to the chess game quality like rules and time allotment...), then one is (potentially) able to see issues sharply elsewhere too. On the other hand the indications of Fischer profundity are all from the world of chess because the whole Fischer life was virtually exclusively around chess. I don't care if Nick don't see such distinctions due to his stupidity or his dishonesty. (To me it's clear that both, that he is both stupid and dishonest). Here is the quote from me, which was the base of THIS discussion: All chess players and people interested in the modern chess history have plenty of examples how sharp, how profound is Fischer's mind is in general (outside the chess board), except for his sick, degenerated racist nonsense. He goes straight to the core of the issues. End of quote (wh, 2004-01-23). Dishonest Nick is insolent in his treatmeant of rgcm--why, he has himself cited my words about the "chess BOARD" from the above quote on Jan 27, 29, 31 -- THREE TIMES. And now he tries to make me look bad. His shitty boomerang has striked back his dirty mouth. > Mr Holsztynski has the right to *change his evident > original position* about "Fischer's great intellectual ability", What is that "evident" doing in your garbage above? You are so dishonest that it is revolting. No, idiot, I didn't change my view that Fischer was profound also outside the chess bioard, which to me means that he simply was profound. I am just tired of you--idiot Nick, and I don't feel like wasting a good discussion on you. You've already wasted it anyway, turned it into a brain-outhouse. Your disgusting ways may temporarily turn me off, away from rgcm, and that might be your greatest life achievement, you slimy, dishonest idiot. Wlod |
> Those Nick's "friends/acquintances" ad nauseam. I have become slightly curious about what Wlodzimierz Holsztynski *imagines* that my educational background must be. Would he presume that I have 'dropped out' of the first form (grade)? :-) "I've been enjoying your scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc." --Larry Tapper (writing to me) > It doesn't take William Shakespeare to see through Nick's cheap tricks. As far as I know, William Shakespeare did not have much formal education. :-) > And Nick's no Byron either. Actually, I prefer reading Keats or Shelley to reading Byron. :-) > My explanation below is met by Nick once again by his abuse of quoting, > via selective quoting, out of context, in bad faith, etrc. etc. etc. etc.: > > > > BTW, I was saying that Fischer was profound also outside of the chess > > > BOARD, but I didn't mean outside of the chess world. > > Now Nick quotes me selectively, providing an irrelevant quote > from two month ago "Irrelevant quote"? As far as I *knew*, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski *had not* changed his position about Bobby Fischer's 'profundity' since that time. For the record, in my post to which Mr Holsztynski has responded, I wrote: "Mr Holsztynski has the right to *change his evident original position* about "Fischer's great intellectual ability", but he should *not* criticise other readers for believing that he means *exactly what he writes here*." > (he has energy and time for such DIRTY manipulations). > In a moment I'll supply the RELEVANT quote from the RELEVANT thread. > Here's the irrelevant one: > > > "Fischer's great intellectual ability *goes way beyond chess*. > > It is scary that that such a wonderful mind can degenerate so bad." > > --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (25 November 2003) It's in the RGCM thread, "It is easier to kill a man than it is to light a cigarette" (created by Simon Spivack, ('chapman Billy')). > Yes, Fischer's **ability/profundity** IS universal, > goes beyond the world of chess. As far as I can tell, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has just *confirmed* that he *still believes* what he wrote (quoted above), "Fischer's great intellectual ability *goes way beyond chess*." Hence, I cannot understand why Mr Holsztynski has just vehemently denounced me (above) for *allegedly* quoting him "out of context", "in bad faith", and "dirty manipulations" *when Mr Holsztynski himself has just evidently confirmed that he still believes exactly what I quoted him as writing*. > There is no such thing as ability for the world of "chess minus the chess > board". If one is able to see sharply issues in the world of chess > (I mean the FIDE issues, the non-strictly-chessical factors, contributing > to the chess game quality like rules and time allotment...), then one is > (potentially) able to see issues sharply elsewhere too. > > On the other hand the indications of Fischer profundity are all from the > world of chess because the whole Fischer life was virtually exclusively > around chess. For the record, in the recent RGCM thread, "Aryeh Davidoff: Rene Chun supports Lev Khariton", as far as I can tell, Bob Musicant and I agreed that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's supposed "plenty of examples of how sharp, how profound is Fischer's mind is in general" (to quote him) were *unconvincing*. > Here is the quote from me, which was the base of THIS discussion: > All chess players and people interested in the modern chess history have > plenty of examples how sharp, how profound is Fischer's mind is in general > (outside the chess board), except for his sick, degenerated racist nonsense. > He goes straight to the core of the issues. > End of quote (wh, 2004-01-23). > > Dishonest Nick is insolent in his treatmeant of rgcm--why, he has himself > cited my words about the "chess BOARD"... Actually, Mr Holsztynski wrote "*outside* the chess board". As far as I can tell, there was *not* a contradiction between Mr Holsztynski having written that Fischer's supposed "great intellectual ability" or profundity "goes way beyond chess" (25 November 2003) and his having written that it "is in general (outside the chess board)" (23 January 2004). > > Mr Holsztynski has the right to *change his evident original position* > > about "Fischer's great intellectual ability", > > What is that "evident" doing in your garbage above? > You are so dishonest that it is revolting. Mr Holsztynski should look up the meaning of 'evident' in an English dictionary. > No, idiot, I didn't change my view For the record, I wrote that "Mr Holsztynski *has the right to change* (it)", *not* that he *has changed* it. > that Fischer was profound also outside the chess bioard, which to me > means that he simply was profound. Thanks to Mr Holstynski for confirming *again* that he still believes what I quoted him as having written about Bobby Fischer on 25 November 2003. > Your disgusting ways may temporarily turn me off, away from rgcm, and that > might be your greatest life achievement, you slimy, dishonest idiot. For the record, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski could know no facts about my 'life achievements'. --Nick |
which any interested reader should have read first. Thanks. The most charitable response that I can offer is that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski evidently continues to have difficulties with reading and comprehending what I write in English, and unfortunately he seems unwilling to listen to anyone else (such as Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy')) who has advised him that he has been evidently misreading what I write and jumping to the wrong conclusions. "People who can read appreciate Nick's posts." --Mark Houlsby (10 December 2003) [email protected] (Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote: > (snipped: I already have addressed it in my previous response.) > > And now he tries to make me look bad. > His shitty boomerang has striked back his dirty mouth. "One point which you appear that you might have missed: It is impossible for anyone to make you look bad per se. Anyone who tried would simply make himself (or herself) look bad. When you write about mathematics, you write with authority....In stark contrast, when you write about the Middle East, and about Israel's situation, you are, by your own admission, 'no expert'. The reason why you look bad with respect to this rather complex historical/political/economic question is that you make *yourself* look bad--you do this by betraying your ignorance left and right, by making wild and unsupportable pro-Israeli claims, by making ad hominem attacks on folks who have, by obliterating your ignorant arguments, pointed out that you have made *yourself* look bad. My advice to you is: confine yourself to writing about subjects with respect to which you are, undoubtedly, an expert. That way, you'll avoid *making yourself look like a trolling idiot*, just as you've done, in this thread, again." (the asterisks were Mr Houlsby's in his original post) --Mark Houlsby (7 December 2003, "Relevant details", writing to Mr Holsztynski) > > Mr Holsztynski has the right to *change his evident original position* > > about "Fischer's great intellectual ability", > > What is that "evident" doing in your garbage above? > You are so dishonest that it is revolting. Mr Holsztynski should look up the meaning of 'evident' in an English dictionary. > No, idiot, I didn't change my view that Fischer was profound also outside > the chess bioard, which to me means that he simply was profound. Given that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has just *confirmed again*, as far as I can tell, that *he still believes what he wrote* in his statement of 25 November 2003, "Fischer's great intellectual ability goes way beyond chess", I cannot understand why Mr Holsztynski has just denounced *my accurate quoting of his statement* as "bad faith", "dirty manipulations", a "shitty boomerang", etc. etc... Of course, the most charitable explanation of Mr Holsztynski's 'responses' would be that he's simply unable to read and comprehend accurately what I write in English, and he also seems obstinately unwilling to listen anyone else who has suggested the possibility that he has been seriously misreading me. > I am just tired of you--idiot Nick, and I don't feel like wasting a good > discussion on you. You've already wasted it anyway, turned it into a > brain-outhouse. Your disgusting ways may temporarily turn me off, away from > rgcm, and that might be your greatest life achievement, you slimy, dishonest > idiot. "Use of language, like taste in reading, is a sure guide to character in Jane Austen's world." --Josephine Ross (Jane Austen: A Companion, p. 112) I can recall this *general advice* from Jerome Bibuld to me, which was *not* expressed specifically in connection to Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. "Why waste your time and our bandwidth on these assholes? They (for the record, Mr Bibuld then was *not* referring specifically to Mr Holsztynski)... are incapable of hearing you, much less understanding you, and even less of considering what you have said...." --Jerome Bibuld (writing to me) --Nick |
message news:<[email protected] >... > The most charitable response that I can offer is that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski > evidently continues to have difficulties with reading and comprehending what > I write in English, and unfortunately he seems unwilling to listen to anyone > else (such as Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy')) who has advised him that he has > been evidently misreading what I write and jumping to the wrong conclusions. > > "People who can read appreciate Nick's posts." > --Mark Houlsby (10 December 2003) > ... > > Nick wrote: > > > Mr Holsztynski has the right to *change his evident original position* > > > about "Fischer's great intellectual ability", > > > > What is that "evident" doing in your garbage above? > > You are so dishonest that it is revolting. > > Mr Holsztynski should look up the meaning of 'evident' in an English > dictionary. It would be helpful if Mr Holsztynski could understand what another writer's words really mean in English *before* he denounces that writer as 'so dishonest that is is revolting'. But, given his ample record of abusive comments here, that might be too much to expect of Mr Holsztynski. > > No, idiot, I didn't change my view For the record, I wrote (above) that "Mr Holsztynski has *the right to change* (it)", *not* that he *has changed* it. > > that Fischer was profound also outside the chess bioard, which to me > > means that he simply was profound. > > Given that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has just *confirmed again*, as far as > I can tell, that *he still believes what he wrote* in his statement of > 25 November 2003, "Fischer's great intellectual ability goes way beyond > chess", I cannot understand why Mr Holsztynski has just denounced *my > accurate quoting of his statement* as "bad faith", "dirty manipulations", > a "shitty boomerang", etc. etc... > > Of course, the most charitable explanation of Mr Holsztynski's 'responses' > would be that he's simply unable to read and comprehend accurately what I > write in English, and he also seems obstinately unwilling to listen anyone > else who has suggested the possibility that he has been seriously misreading > me. > > > I am just tired of you--idiot Nick, and I don't feel like wasting a > > good discussion on you. In my view, it's impossible to have a 'good discussion' with Mr Holsztynski because (not to mention other reasons) he seems to have serious difficulties with reading and comprehending what I write in English. And I would not presume to be qualified enough to write in Polish to him. :-) > > You've already wasted it anyway, turned it into a brain-outhouse. For the record, *unlike me*, Mr Holsztynski has used terms such as 'shitty boomerang' in this thread. > > Your disgusting ways may temporarily turn me off, away from rgcm, and > > that might be your greatest life achievement, you slimy, dishonest idiot. > > "Use of language, like taste in reading, is a sure guide to character > in Jane Austen's world." > --Josephine Ross (Jane Austen: A Companion, p. 112) Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has quite a record of expressing other vehement personal judgments about some other writers in the chess newsgroups. For example, in the thread, "Todd E. Flambers is just a troll" (March 2003), Matt Nemmers criticised Sam Sloan, and Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote in his defence of Sam Sloan by personally attacking Matt Nemmers and *repeatedly* using the term, "matt idiot(s)", as a derogatory reference to Matt Nemmers. "If you never ever posted anything on rec.games.chess.* the chess lists would be so much better for it. Indeed, the noise you make is a nuisance, and that's all." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (23 March 2003, writing to Matt Nemmers) Then Mark Houlsby wrote to defend Matt Nemmers against Mr Holsztynski. "I didn't say that Sam (Sloan) does or does not abuse rgcm. And I didn't address the quality of his posts (which often is high). I am against destroying every thread to which Sam contributes into antisam splutter by all kind of matt idiots. You want to criticise him? Start a new thread or a new newsgroup." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (23 March 2003, writing to Mark Houlsby) As far as I can tell, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski thought much more highly of Sam Sloan than of Matt Nemmers as contributers to the chess newsgroups. > I can recall this *general advice* from Jerome Bibuld to me, which was > *not* expressed specifically in connection to Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. > > "Why waste your time and our bandwidth on these assholes? They (for the > record, Mr Bibuld then was *not* referring specifically to Mr Holsztynski)... > are incapable of hearing you, much less understanding you, and even less > of considering what you have said...." > --Jerome Bibuld (writing to me) As far as I and some other readers of my acquaintance here can tell, Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski does seem quite incapable of 'hearing (me), much less understanding (me), and even less of considering what I have said.' --Nick |
message news:<[email protected] >... > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote in > message news:<LPr*[email protected]>... > > Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this thread. > > > May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an attempt to improve > > > his ability to read and to comprehend English? > > > > I can't see the point where Wlod has said that you've written > > anything in this thread. What are you referring to? His allusion in the "P.S." of Mr Holsztynski's post of 4 February 2004. For the record, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has evidently misread my writings on at least several other occasions in other threads (which I may discuss elsewhere). > Dave, if phony Nick were a bit more intelligent he would sit quiet. > He is alluding to the allusion I made in this thread about his > "Hitler-Fischer admirers" garbage which he indeed has posted in the > other thread. The RGCM thread, "Aryeh Davidoff: Rene Chun supports Lev Khariton". > I was wrong at the moment of writing about identifying the thread > in which shallow Nick has posted his idiocy. Evidently, Bob Musicant does *not* regard what I wrote as 'idiocy'. Notwithstanding the fact that, as far as I can tell, Bob Musicant seems to be a friend of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and *not* a friend of mine, Bob Musicant evidently has agreed with me in this thread (please read his post of 8 February 2004) about what I wrote in the "Aryeh Davidoff: Rene Chun supports Lev Khariton" in comparing *some* of the *respective* admirers of Bobby Fischer and Adolf Hitler in their attitudes toward their heroes. Please read the thread, "Aryeh Davidoff: Rene Chun supports Lev Khariton" to find Mr Holsztynski's assertion (23 January 2004): "All chess players and people interested in the modern chess history have plenty of examples how sharp, how profound is Fischer's mind in general (outside the chess board), except for his sick, degenerated racist nonsense. He goes straight to the core of the issues." Then one may read how Wlodzimierz Holsztynski attempted (weakly) to support his assertion (28 January 2004), and how Bob Musicant (29 January 2004) and I responded to that attempt. As far as I can tell, both Bob Musicant and I would concur that "Fischer's mind in general" is *not* "profound" (as Mr Holsztynski has claimed in his usual tone of evidently absolute certainty). > And that is a proof for him that I have problems with English. No, that's only a minor part of it. There's much more evidence that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski indeed has problems with reading and comprehending what I have written elsewhere. Indeed, Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy') has--in a highly diplomatic manner-- advised Mr Holsztynski that he has been misreading what I have written because he insists on applying the wrong context to it. > I do have my problems with English but his misplaced "argument" > just shows how stupid he is. That was *not* my complete 'argument' with regard to Mr Holsztynski's evident reading and comprehension problems, and it was foolish for him to believe or to assert that it was. Several other writers here (who, like me, are fluent in English) have commented to me that they have noticed that Mr Holsztynski evidently has problems in reading and comprehending some other writings here, insofar as they can ascertain it from the evidence of his sometimes blatantly mistaken responses. > PS. Despite my difficulties with English I've got in the past complements > about my English here, at rgcm, about which Nick could only dream. I happen to know an editor at the Oxford University Press, not to mention at least several professors of English, who would be quite amused by what Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has just written in contrasting his and my abilities to write in English. If Mr Holsztynski really believes that he can write better in English than I, then he's living in a 'Wolkenkuckucksheim' ('cloud-cuckoo-land') of his own fanciful imagination, and may his ignorance be eternal bliss for him! :-) I appreciate any compliments about my English writings more when they come honestly from persons who are better qualified to assess their merits (or who are in a position to bestow literary awards). In my view, the general standard of English literacy at rec.games.chess.misc tends to be low, and accordingly I tend to take any comments, positive or negative, less seriously. If Wlodzimierz Holsztynski intended to imply (above), however, that my writings here have not been appreciated by any readers, then he's wrong again. Here are some comments about my writings from a broad variety of readers: Jerome Bibuld: "The general tenor of your posts has been so heartwarmingly human and winningly intelligent." Bill Brock: "Bravo. I concur with all your major points." Mark Houlsby: "Nick's post is typically lucid and balanced." John Macnab: "Great story! Thanks." Susan Polgar: "Nick, Thank you....I am glad to see posters like you." Simon Spivack: "Your posts are amongst the most rewarding in RGCM, even though we do differ on some things." Larry Tapper: "I've been enjoying your scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc." --Nick |
message news:<LPr*[email protected] >... > Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > > For the record, I have *not* previously written anything in this thread. > > May I suggest that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski make an attempt to improve > > his ability to read and to comprehend English? > > I can't see the point where Wlod has said that you've written > anything in this thread. What are you referring to? The "P.S." in Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's post (4 February 2004), which Mr Holsztynski has confirmed in his post (7 February 2004) was intended particularly as an allusion to me. "PS. The low class (simply idiotic) elaborations about admiration for Fischer+Hitler (what a nonsense! in the context of our thread), *made in this thread* by the phony rgcm participant, whom I won't even name..." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (4 February 2004) Evidently, Bob Musicant, writing in this thread (8 February 2004), has agreed with me that what I wrote in making *some comparisons* between *some admirers* of Bobby Fischer and Adolf Hitler *respectively* in the thread, "Aryeh Davidoff: Rene Chun supports Lev Khariton" was *not* 'simply idiotic' (as Mr Holsztynski claims in his 'proof by assertion'). For the record, Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski does *not* know me personally or professionally--we have never met. Nonetheless, Mr Holsztynski feels free to continue making many unwarranted derogatory presumptions about me personally, often in abusive terms, which are *unsupported by citing any relevant evidence*. I hope that you are able to recognise the significant distinction between an unsupported assertion and a response to it that cites sufficient evidence (as I prefer to do) in order to prove that it's wrong. For example, in the thread, "Relevant details" (6 December 2003), Wlodzimierz Holsztynski makes a reference to "(my) low IQ". It does not particularly disturb me that Mr Holsztynski regards me as an 'idiot' (as he has reiterated on at least several occasions). But his characteristically unsupported assertion does raise the question of how Mr Holsztynski (as one reader here has asked me) could know all the facts about my IQ test(s)--if any--and the results. Of course, Mr Holsztynski does *not* know those facts about me, and if he did know them, then he might be surprised. Of course, I do *not* consider myself obliged to confirm or to deny every ignorant personal accusation that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski may make about me. I have better things to do in my life. For instance, if Mr Holsztynski were to accuse me of being complicit in the assassination of United States President Kennedy, then I could have some difficulty in absolutely disproving that accusation beyond citing the fact that I cannot even remember that historical event when it happened. :-) --Nick |
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<jB3Ub.758$%[email protected] >... > > > > > I have to grant that the evidence on this issue > > is not so clear as it is in the case of Fischer. > > > > Bob > > Bob, > > the above quoted sentence is so far the year 2004 > rgcm leading understatment :-) > > Two more remarks about Spasski/Spassky and Fischer. > > Denying one's ethnic background ("the blood composition") > does NOT mean that one is against his "blood" ethnic group, > it doesn't imply any prejudice. In particular, Spaaski's > denial of his (half- or whatever) Jewishness absolutely > does not mean that he is antiSemitic. I think the point is that he both denies the background and is overtly anti-Semitic. >Not to mention > that the "Jewish fraction" was possibly small, despite the > name, hence "accidental". Another possibility is a "liberal > and tolerant" view that your ethnic ("blood") background is > something accidental, that what counts is only your own > conviction and ethnic/national self-declaration (if it were > not for Hitler we possibly would not know about Tarrash's and > some other chess players' Jewish background). > > Talking about Fischer. I wonder what pronouncements about > Jews his mother made, what was her attitude and style > with regards to Jewishness. She was a leftist, perhaps even > a wild leftist, with strong communist and pro-Soviet leanings. > Even if at any time she became critical of SU (did she?), > she was strongly affected by the communist/Soviet propaganda > language and communist style. This could affect Fischer's > childhood too. One should remember the anti-Jewish young > Marx' prejudices. > > Regards, > > Wlod > > PS. The low class (simply idiotic) elaborations about > alleged admiration for Fischer+Hitler (what a nonsense! > in the context of our thread), made in this thread by > the phony rgcm participant, whom I won't even name, are > insensitive. To ease his trivial frustrations, he brutally > steps on deep feelings of others, born out of a great tragedy, > which translates into many **personal tragedies**. |
> feelings and were even prejudiced against Blacks. Is that an argument pro or against Spasski's presumed anti-Semitism? |
news:<[email protected] >... > I based my post primarily on Hans Ree's essay "Vegetarians" reprinted in > "The Human Comedy of Chess, the piece about Fischer's anti-Semitism, > particularly as portrayed by Petra Dautov in "Bobby Fischer, Wie Er Wirklich > Ist." Bob, Thanks for citing your sources (which is a standard scholarly practice that some trolls here are unable to understand or to respect whenever I do it). > Ree wrote that in "The Inner Game," apparently the book published in > the U.S. under the title "End Game," Yes, 'The Inner Game' (UK) is the same book (allowing for any trans-Atlantic editing for spelling and punctuation) as "End Game" (US). > Dominic Lawson "characterized Spassky as a fierce anti-Semite, who > temporarily dragged Short into his distaste for Jews. Lawson's book is > very malicious; overall, he is not very generous toward chess players.... As far as I can tell, 'The Inner Game' seems not to be a necessarily strictly accurate work of journalism. (I have noticed at least one clear factual error where Dominic Lawson misattributed a famous 'quotation' by Marshal Foch to Marshal Ney.) Perhaps parts of the book were embellished in order to make it appear more appealing, if not titillating, to the readers who don't play chess. But I cannot say for certain that those suspected embellishments would have included the anecdote(s) about Boris Spassky. Here's a rather speculative news article about Dominic Lawson: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,428597,00.html --Nick |
> > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:<[email protected]>... > > I based my post primarily on Hans Ree's essay "Vegetarians" reprinted in > > "The Human Comedy of Chess, the piece about Fischer's anti-Semitism, > > particularly as portrayed by Petra Dautov in "Bobby Fischer, Wie Er Wirklich > > Ist." > > Bob, > > Thanks for citing your sources (which is a standard scholarly practice that > some trolls here are unable to understand or to respect whenever I do it). > > > Ree wrote that in "The Inner Game," apparently the book published in > > the U.S. under the title "End Game," > > Yes, 'The Inner Game' (UK) is the same book (allowing for any trans-Atlantic > editing for spelling and punctuation) as "End Game" (US). > > > Dominic Lawson "characterized Spassky as a fierce anti-Semite, who > > temporarily dragged Short into his distaste for Jews. Lawson's book is > > very malicious; overall, he is not very generous toward chess players.... > > As far as I can tell, 'The Inner Game' seems not to be a necessarily strictly > accurate work of journalism. (I have noticed at least one clear factual error > where Dominic Lawson misattributed a famous 'quotation' by Marshal Foch to > Marshal Ney.) Perhaps parts of the book were embellished in order to make it > appear more appealing, if not titillating, to the readers who don't play chess. > But I cannot say for certain that those suspected embellishments would have > included the anecdote(s) about Boris Spassky. > > Here's a rather speculative news article about Dominic Lawson: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,428597,00.html > > --Nick Isn't 'Dominic' the editor of 'The Spectator', the brother of the voluptuous & famous 'Nigella' (who 'does' steak the way I like), who's father is a Conservative M.P.?.. |
message news:<[email protected] >... > Nick wrote: > > ... > > Here's a rather speculative news article about Dominic Lawson: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,428597,00.html > > Isn't 'Dominic' the editor of 'The Spectator', the brother of the > voluptuous & famous 'Nigella' (who 'does' steak the way I like), > who's father is a Conservative M.P.? Dominic Lawson (a former editor of 'The Spectator') is a son of Nigel Lawson, (a former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer) and a brother of Nigella Lawson. |
> Ree wrote that in "The Inner Game," apparently the book published in > the U.S. under the title "End Game," Dominic Lawson "characterized > Spassky as a fierce anti-Semite, who temporarily dragged Short into his > distaste for Jews. The relevant passage of the book is, ``There were other reasons for welcoming an end to the professional relationship between Spassky and Nigel. The Russian ex-world champion, in common with many lesser men of his age and race, was a thoroughgoing anti- Semite, and there were occasions when he seemed to be teaching Nigel how this could be applied to chess. Following this expert tuition, Nigel would pronounce a certain opening, such as the Gruenfeld defence, to be a `Jewish' opening. (It was, incidentally, the then favourite opening of Garri Kasparov. And Garri Kasparov was born Garri Weinstein, only taking his mother's surname upon the death of his father, a Jew.) Under the Spassky influence, Nigel even began to refer to a `Jewish' style of playing chess. This, I gathered, was an indirect, modernist style of almost wilful complexity -- as practised by the likes of Garri Kasparov and Jonathan Speelman, and not at all like the classically direct play of Boris Spassky and Nigel Short. Fortunately, with the dropping of Boris Spassky, Nigel also dropped his racial theories of chess.'' -- Dominic Lawson, _The Inner Game_, p28. Wlodek has suggested elsewhere in the thread that Spassky's comments may have been self-deprecating Jewish humour. That is, I suppose, a possi- bility but I believe that Dominic Lawson is, himself, Jewish, so you'd expect him to get the joke, too. Dave. -- David Richerby Love Ghost (TM): it's like a haunting www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ spirit that you can share with someone special! |
> Bob Musicant <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ree wrote that in "The Inner Game," apparently the book published in >> the U.S. under the title "End Game," Dominic Lawson "characterized >> Spassky as a fierce anti-Semite, who temporarily dragged Short into his >> distaste for Jews. > > The relevant passage of the book is, > > ``There were other reasons for welcoming an end to the professional > relationship between Spassky and Nigel. The Russian ex-world champion, in > common with many lesser men of his age and race, was a thoroughgoing anti- > Semite, and there were occasions when he seemed to be teaching Nigel how > this could be applied to chess. Following this expert tuition, Nigel > would pronounce a certain opening, such as the Gruenfeld defence, to be a > `Jewish' opening. (It was, incidentally, the then favourite opening of > Garri Kasparov. And Garri Kasparov was born Garri Weinstein, only taking > his mother's surname upon the death of his father, a Jew.) Under the > Spassky influence, Nigel even began to refer to a `Jewish' style of > playing chess. This, I gathered, was an indirect, modernist style of > almost wilful complexity -- as practised by the likes of Garri Kasparov > and Jonathan Speelman, and not at all like the classically direct play of > Boris Spassky and Nigel Short. Fortunately, with the dropping of Boris > Spassky, Nigel also dropped his racial theories of chess.'' > -- Dominic Lawson, _The Inner Game_, p28. > > Wlodek has suggested elsewhere in the thread that Spassky's comments may > have been self-deprecating Jewish humour. That is, I suppose, a possi- > bility but I believe that Dominic Lawson is, himself, Jewish, so you'd > expect him to get the joke, too. Dear Mr Richerby, Dominic Lawson had the benefit of hearing Nigel Short's thoughts during the Kasparov match. I recall watching a TV programme at the time in which Lawson got the better of David Norwood's chess commentary, IMO, because he had heard what Short had said about the position at issue. I should take any comments on the matter of Spassky's anti-Semitism according to Short, by Lawson, to be close to definitive. Regards, Simon. |
|
> > this is boringer than my grandma See gruppen?! see how this tiresome web tv moron can come in here & suggest all manner of things her despicable granny is up to with a shop-soiled dummy tit? No comeback either, gadzooks!.. |
news:[email protected] > Due to the so many angles of Jewishness: > "blood", religious, selfproclamations (which may > change in time), persecutions, ... the question > often is interesting and not simple, does not > have to have a simple answer in terms of > the percentile. To Nazies you were a Jew if you had > 50% or more "Jewish blood". Actually to the nazis you were Jewish if you had more than 50% of "Jewish blood", say 3 Jewish grandparents. If you had 2 such grandparents you were a Mischling (mixture) of the first degree, if 1 then a Mischling of the second degree. This was unless they practiced the Jewish religion, in which case they automatically became Jewish. These definitions may look silly, but back then they turned into a matter of life and death for many people involved. Ralph Giordano recalled in his autobiographical novel (The Bertinis) the case of a Hamburg mixed couple who had decided to bring up one son as a Christian and the other as a Jew (they were twins). During the war the mother was protected from the racial laws because married to an "aryan", and so was the Christian son, because he was a Mischling, but nothing protected the other son, who was deported first to a Jewish ghetto in Poland and then to some extermination camp. > Hugo Steinhaus, the > great Polsich mathematician made fun of it in his > diary, writing that these idiots didn't see that > their definition was (infinitely) iterative. Indeed it was. > He himself, Steinhaus, was of Jewish descend, had > to appear under a different name and to hide from > Germans, when they occupied Poland during WWII, > but in his diaries he never mentions his ethnic > descend. The funny thing is that the distinction between Jews and Mischlinge only applied to German citizens. The nazis did not make any such distinction when it came to foreign Jews. In other words, German Mischlinge were spared not because they were "only" half Jewish, but because they were half German. Marco PS as a source on all this, you can check "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers", a very good book in spite of the provocative title. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
Maybe Spasski should do something about his style. At least three grandmasters, Timman, Korchnoi and Short, have taken Spasski's anti-Semitism seriously, so it can't be that obvious. "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > > Spassky's mother was Jewish. > > Hm, it's his last name which is Jewish. > > > Like Fischer, Spassky has expressed > > anti-Semitic sentiments, > > I doubt it very much. On rgcm someone cited > a reaction of Spassky to Fischer's nonsense, > in a conversation between spassky and > someone who knew him well (Korchnoy?), > when Spassky with straight face said that > Fischer was "right". It was very obvious > that Spassky was joking, deadpanning in his > style. > > > along with "explanations" of how/why his > > mother wasn't really Jewish. > > Would it be because it was his father, not his mother, > that was Jewish? > > Due to the so many angles of Jewishness: > "blood", religious, selfproclamations (which may > change in time), persecutions, ... the question > often is interesting and not simple, does not > have to have a simple answer in terms of > the percentile. To Nazies you were a Jew if you had > 50% or more "Jewish blood". Hugo Hteinhaus, the > great Polsich mathematician made fun of it in his > diary, writing that these idiots didn't see that > their definition was (infinitely) iterative. > He himself, Steinhaus, was of Jewish descend, had > to appear under a different name and to hide from > Germans, when they occupied Poland during WWII, > but in his diaries he never mentions his ethnic > descend. His family had converted to (protestant?) > christianism long before WWII. I see also the question > of Schlechter's ethnicity, that his family was (deeply?) > catholic. Pssibly they were converts too, I don't know > (possibly that's why Schlechter ended up in Judaica-- > but there are worse dishonors, Mr. Fischer :-). > > Regards, > > Wlod |
> >It was very obvious that Spassky was joking, deadpanning in his style. > > Maybe Spasski should do something about his style. At least three > grandmasters, Timman, Korchnoi and Short, have taken Spasski's > anti-Semitism seriously, so it can't be that obvious. Hm, three GMs, you say. Perhaps I am trying to defend Spasski too hard. How sad. Thank you for the info about which I didn't know. Wlod |
"Peter van der Hoog" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > >It was very obvious that Spassky was joking, deadpanning in his style. > > Maybe Spasski should do something about his style. At least three > grandmasters, Timman, Korchnoi and Short, have taken Spasski's anti-Semitism > seriously, so it can't be that obvious. Peter, Is that in print anywhere? English or otherwise? Bob |
"Vrij Nederland" a Dutch magazine, a diner in Paris together with Boris Spasski and Bobby Fischer, organized by van Oosterom. Timman found it curious to see Boris and Bobby, both Jewish, talk the whole evening about the World Jewish conspiracy. Spasski fully agreeing with Fischer. The information about Short's anti-Semitism I got from one of Hans Ree's columns. Hans Ree is a very reliable source. He knows every grandmaster in the circuit and he would never spread a stupid rumour. One thing is certain: Spasski's dark sense of humour is not understood by everybody. "Bob Musicant" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:ukgUb.11539$%[email protected]... > > "Peter van der Hoog" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > >It was very obvious that Spassky was joking, deadpanning in his style. > > > > Maybe Spasski should do something about his style. At least three > > grandmasters, Timman, Korchnoi and Short, have taken Spasski's > anti-Semitism > > seriously, so it can't be that obvious. > > Peter, > > Is that in print anywhere? English or otherwise? > > Bob > > |
"Peter van der Hoog" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Jan Timman confirms Spasski's anti-Semitism. He described in an edition of > "Vrij Nederland" a Dutch magazine, a diner in Paris together with Boris > Spasski and Bobby Fischer, organized by van Oosterom. Timman found it > curious to see Boris and Bobby, both Jewish, talk the whole evening about > the World Jewish conspiracy. Spasski fully agreeing with Fischer. > > > > The information about Short's anti-Semitism I got from one of Hans Ree's > columns. Hans Ree is a very reliable source. He knows every grandmaster in > the circuit and he would never spread a stupid rumour. I believe that would be the column I quoted earlier in this thread, in which he acknowledged that he was getting it from another source - Lawson - though he had it confirmed by an unnamed "Russia expert." > > One thing is certain: Spasski's dark sense of humour is not understood by > everybody. > > > > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:ukgUb.11539$%[email protected]... > > > > "Peter van der Hoog" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > >It was very obvious that Spassky was joking, deadpanning in his style. > > > > > > Maybe Spasski should do something about his style. At least three > > > grandmasters, Timman, Korchnoi and Short, have taken Spasski's > > anti-Semitism > > > seriously, so it can't be that obvious. > > > > Peter, > > > > Is that in print anywhere? English or otherwise? > > > > Bob > > > > > > |
Read it at the Chess Cafe or somewhere else on the Internet. Did you read Fischer versus Russians? In one of the discussions how to beat Fischer Baturinski suggest to send a physician to the Fischer - Taimanov match and Spasski dares to make a joke: "A sexologist'. Baturinski reprimands Spasski: "I see, Boris, that you are in a jovial mood". Perhaps Baturinski has something to do with Spasski's anti-Semitism? Whatever, the Russian chess players are for a large part Jewish and in a tough environment, with a deadly competition you will always get competitors who dislike their own group. "Bob Musicant" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:OHBUb.38908$%[email protected]... > > "Peter van der Hoog" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > Jan Timman confirms Spasski's anti-Semitism. He described in an edition of > > "Vrij Nederland" a Dutch magazine, a diner in Paris together with Boris > > Spasski and Bobby Fischer, organized by van Oosterom. Timman found it > > curious to see Boris and Bobby, both Jewish, talk the whole evening about > > the World Jewish conspiracy. Spasski fully agreeing with Fischer. > > > > > > > > The information about Short's anti-Semitism I got from one of Hans Ree's > > columns. Hans Ree is a very reliable source. He knows every grandmaster in > > the circuit and he would never spread a stupid rumour. > > I believe that would be the column I quoted earlier in this thread, in which > he acknowledged that he was getting it from another source - Lawson - though > he had it confirmed by an unnamed "Russia expert." > > > > > One thing is certain: Spasski's dark sense of humour is not understood by > > everybody. > > > > > > > > "Bob Musicant" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:ukgUb.11539$%[email protected]... > > > > > > "Peter van der Hoog" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > news:[email protected]... > > > > >It was very obvious that Spassky was joking, deadpanning in his > style. > > > > > > > > Maybe Spasski should do something about his style. At least three > > > > grandmasters, Timman, Korchnoi and Short, have taken Spasski's > > > anti-Semitism > > > > seriously, so it can't be that obvious. > > > > > > Peter, > > > > > > Is that in print anywhere? English or otherwise? > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
In one of the discussions how to beat Fischer > Baturinski suggest to send a physician to the Fischer - Taimanov match and > Spasski dares to make a joke: "A sexologist'. Baturinski reprimands Spasski: > "I see, Boris, that you are in a jovial mood". Perhaps Baturinski has > something to do with Spasski's anti-Semitism? Whatever, the Russian chess > players are for a large part Jewish and in a tough environment, with a > deadly competition you will always get competitors who dislike their own > group. Is it the proof of "anti-Semitism" or yer "joke of humor"??? |
To see it as a reason for Spasski to become anti-Semitic is a joke. But Batturinsky, who send many to the deathcamps, was not joking. I am very sure. "Todd E. Flambers" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "Peter van der Hoog" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > In one of the discussions how to beat Fischer > > Baturinski suggest to send a physician to the Fischer - Taimanov match and > > Spasski dares to make a joke: "A sexologist'. Baturinski reprimands Spasski: > > "I see, Boris, that you are in a jovial mood". Perhaps Baturinski has > > something to do with Spasski's anti-Semitism? Whatever, the Russian chess > > players are for a large part Jewish and in a tough environment, with a > > deadly competition you will always get competitors who dislike their own > > group. > > Is it the proof of "anti-Semitism" or yer "joke of humor"??? |
> > Is it the proof of "anti-Semitism" or yer "joke of humor"??? > To see it as a reason for Spasski to become anti-Semitic is a joke. But > Batturinsky, who send many to the deathcamps, was not joking. I am very > sure. I did not understand anything in yer post. Can you clearly and exactly explain what you mean? You are very sure that Batturinsky could send Spassky to the deathcamp for his joke? |
Sorry. >Are you serious to think Spasski became an anti-Semite because of Baturinski's remark? Answer: No. >You are very sure Batturinsky could send Spassky to the deathcamp for his joke? Answer: I'm very sure he could *not*. >Was Baturinski joking? Answer: No, Baturinski made a sarcastic remark. He tried to put Spasski in his place. >Do you like to know Spasski's opinion about Batturinsky? Yes, certainly. Good questions, by the way! |
BUT, bljanakhuj, where do you see the connection between Spasski's anti-Semitism and his opinion about none-Jewish, anti-Semitic, retired KGB-colonel Butt-urine-sky? Eh? "Peter van der Hoog" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > > I did not understand anything in yer post. > Sorry. > >Are you serious to think Spasski became an anti-Semite because of > Baturinski's remark? > Answer: No. > >You are very sure Batturinsky could send Spassky to the deathcamp for his > joke? > Answer: I'm very sure he could *not*. > >Was Baturinski joking? > Answer: No, Baturinski made a sarcastic remark. He tried to put Spasski in > his place. > >Do you like to know Spasski's opinion about Batturinsky? > Yes, certainly. Good questions, by the way! |
Jews on it but I'm sure he himself was Jewish. .Where did you get the information from that he wasn't? Another trivia: Once Baturinski took Tal apart because he sacrificed a rook, which was against the agreement to play without any risk. For your information: Tal was not send to a prison camp. From all Russian chess players Korchnoi hated Baturinski the most. "Todd E. Flambers" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Thanks so much, Peter, for detailed FAQ. I appreciated yer hard work. > > BUT, bljanakhuj, where do you see the connection between Spasski's > anti-Semitism and his opinion about none-Jewish, anti-Semitic, retired > KGB-colonel Butt-urine-sky? Eh? > > "Peter van der Hoog" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > > I did not understand anything in yer post. > > Sorry. > > >Are you serious to think Spasski became an anti-Semite because of > > Baturinski's remark? > > Answer: No. > > >You are very sure Batturinsky could send Spassky to the deathcamp for his > > joke? > > Answer: I'm very sure he could *not*. > > >Was Baturinski joking? > > Answer: No, Baturinski made a sarcastic remark. He tried to put Spasski in > > his place. > > >Do you like to know Spasski's opinion about Batturinsky? > > Yes, certainly. Good questions, by the way! |
> Baturinski removed members from a chess-team because there were too many > Jews on it but I'm sure he himself was Jewish. .Where did you get the > information from that he wasn't? A Jewish KGB-colonel with Russian name and last name in 50s? I like yer humor! Maybe you know any Jewish SS-colonels too? >> Another trivia: Once Baturinski took Tal apart because he sacrificed a rook, > which was against the agreement to play without any risk. For your > information: Tal was not send to a prison camp. From all Russian chess > players Korchnoi hated Baturinski the most. |
Colonels I don't know but there were indeed some high-ranked Jews member of the SS. But whatever, it's totally irrelevant for this thread. "Todd E. Flambers" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "Peter van der Hoog" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > Baturinski removed members from a chess-team because there were too many > > Jews on it but I'm sure he himself was Jewish. .Where did you get the > > information from that he wasn't? > > A Jewish KGB-colonel with Russian name and last name in 50s? I like > yer humor! Maybe you know any Jewish SS-colonels too? > > >> Another trivia: Once Baturinski took Tal apart because he > sacrificed a rook, > > which was against the agreement to play without any risk. For your > > information: Tal was not send to a prison camp. From all Russian chess > > players Korchnoi hated Baturinski the most. |
> [...] Did you read Fischer versus Russians? In one of the > discussions how to beat Fischer Baturinski suggest to send > a physician to the Fischer - Taimanov match and Spasski > dares to make a joke: "A sexologist'. Baturinski reprimands > Spasski: "I see, Boris, that you are in a jovial mood". > Perhaps Baturinski has something to do with Spasski's > anti-Semitism? This is a nice trivia item but I don't see it as significant in any way. I'll accept it as a joke. You've mentioned later how dangerous was Baturinski. But once Stalin was dead (1953, and the official date is March 5, I believe--possibly he was dead/killed already two days earlier), things became a bit less extreme. The Soviet terror was overwhelming almost until the end of USSR but Baturinski could not send a leading grandmaster to his death just for joking "innocently" (not politically), not even to a camp, around year 1971. Spasski had much more common sense than Korchnoy, he knew how much he can joke safely. Another GM could be afraid of losing some privileges (that's all), but Spasski was the world champion at the time. Regards, Wlod (It was so funny when Jerome Bibuld chose USSR and similar countries as his potential favorites :-) :-) |
Boris Spassky "The Noblest Russian of them all" b. 1937 - World champion: 1969 - 1972 by Larry Parr http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/spassky.php |
> But once Stalin was dead (1953, and the official date is March 5, I > believe--possibly he was dead/killed already two days earlier) The death was officially announced at 0100GMT on 6th March, 1953 in a statement that said he died at 2150 local time the previous day. http://tinyurl.com/2s8pl ( -- > http://news.bbc.co.uk/... ) (I find it amusing that this article, in proper 1950s BBC style consistently refers to him as Mr Stalin.) Dave. -- David Richerby Beefy Composer (TM): it's like a pupil www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of Beethoven that's made from a cow! |
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski <[email protected]> wrote: > > But once Stalin was dead (1953, and the official date is March 5, I > > believe--possibly he was dead/killed already two days earlier) > > The death was officially announced at 0100GMT on 6th March, 1953 in a > statement that said he died at 2150 local time the previous day. > > http://tinyurl.com/2s8pl ( --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/... ) > > (I find it amusing that this article, in proper 1950s BBC style > consistently refers to him as Mr Stalin.) > > > Dave. Thank you Dave for confirming the Stalin's (official :-) date of death. Many thoughts and even memories come to mind. Too bad that this is an off topic :-) I can't resist to mention Truman's statement: "I am sorry just as I would be if such a thing happened to any other acquaintance of mine," I have a lot of respect and sympathy for Truman, who was an intelligent, down to earth but principled person. And here he displaced or rather misplaced a sentiment for the worst criminal ever--Stalin himself. Truman immersed himself in American history, and still he can't help the eternal attitude of those who are up there at power, an attitude older than the USA. He was dealing with that monstrous Stalin and still, instead of remembering, as he always tried, that he represents the people of the USA and for them, and even the hopes of the democratic (that's a shortcut) world, he was still respecting Stalin just as any royal figure respected another royal figure over the centuries and milenia. Power corrupts. And those at power respect each other often much too much. Finally the big and refreshing difference was brought by Reagan, that "simple" Reagan, who was always taken for granted by the oh-so-so-sophisticated super-hiper intellectuals. In a contrast to Carter, who had to subject himself to kissing Brezniev (that criminal old dog Brezniev had succeeded in putting his paw on Carter's head, thus symbolically showing who controls whom), Reagan didn't care for any such nonsense. In a contrast to Gerald Ford, who was sooo impressed with the talks on the highest level, that he went to talk all the way to... Vladivostok(!!!--what a stupid thing to do it was!), Reagan didn't even care for any of "on the highest level talks" when the circumstances were not right. And so, the "simple" Reagan in this respect showed himself immune to the corruption of the tinsel of power, in a contrast to his supposedly brighter precedessors. In this Reagan showed himself profound--oppressors should be treated as criminalists, even when they are at the top. There is no need to cordially shake their hand or kiss them on both cheeks three times. I also checked "Khrushchev Remembers"... o-la-la-la... it is an off topic and I better stop now. Thank you, regards, Wlod |
> I can't resist to mention Truman's statement: > > "I am sorry just as I would be if such a thing > happened to any other acquaintance of mine," > > I have a lot of respect and sympathy for Truman, who > was an intelligent, down to earth but principled person. > And here he displaced or rather misplaced a sentiment > for the worst criminal ever--Stalin himself. It's not clear to me whether that was an offical or personal statement. If it was an official statement, it would make sense not to antagonize the USSR by declaring his relief at Stalin's death, especially when it was unclear who would be taking over in the USSR and exactly what their attitude to the west would be. On the other hand, Stalin and Truman seem to have got on rather well (`I think I can do business with Stalin.' `He's very honest, but he's also smart as hell.' Dave. -- David Richerby Disposable Poetic Tool (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a hammer but it's in verse and you never have to clean it! |
> [...] Stalin and Truman seem to have got on rather well > (`I think I can do business with Stalin.' `He's very > honest, but he's also smart as hell.' > > > Dave. Yes, Stalin had charmed many Western leaders, intellectuals etc. How ironic, how terrifying. It says something very deep about the human nature. Stalin even as a youngster was known for his dishonesty, for his treacherous ways. Other revolutionaries were arogant, dogmatic, crazy, ... Stalin was hardly a revolutionary. In his early years it is impossible to tell what was his allegiance. The Soviet system co-created by him selected bandits to the top spots, and he was the most devious of them all. Even Beria was not as "good" as Stalin. He managed to survive till Stalin death, but then he celebrated to soon, he let his gard down, and Khrushchev got him. Was Stalin really that charming in "personal contacts"? I doubt it. It was all psychology and human nature. First of all Stalin didn't allow for any but superficial contacts with Westerners. He was devious, intellugent, skilled at intrigues, paranoid, fearful, could judge people well... He was also a Machiavelli's student. Machiavelli was basically a scientist, who chose to study the mechanisms that work in society, between people. Did he ever dream about a student like Stalin? So, those Westerners, vaguely aware of the Stalin's power to kill thousands within hours, to make miserable whole millions of people with one ideological decree--so, they see that short guy, with a poor skin complexion, and after the meeting they are still alive, WOW! That guy is so humain, so charming (not at all that Monster that we know he is)! You see what I mean? People are atavistically impressed by power, they justify the tyrant or whatever represents power for the sake of their survival. Camus had that character in his novel, who after tortures sincerely switches his believs and converts to his tormentors. People do it even without being subjected to torture. It is enough that they get the idea subconsciously in their mind. And suddenly those seemingly sophisticated "intellectuals", who make the most "humain" statements, support a Monster Murderer like Stalin. (Often the mechanism has no logical-rational foundation, not even self-interest--it is enough that the atavistic mechanism kicks in in the presence of power. Such a person will be convinced about her/his mind abilities, but her/his mind just serves the instinct, neglecting the true logic). Regards, Wlod |