Bob Wade

Date: 29 Nov 2008 10:02:45
From: [email protected]
Subject: Bob Wade

It is with extreme sadness that I have to report that Bob Wade,
International Master, arbiter, journalist, coach, organiser, writer,
chess archivist, friend to chess and friend to me, died 29th November
2008 at 3am from pneumonia, he had been in the Elisabeth Hospital in
Woolwich for three days for complications from a common cold.

Robert Graham Wade was born April 10th 1921 in Dunedin, New Zealand
and died in London, England Saturday 29th November 2008.

Bob's influence on the game covered every area imaginable, and made
him a true giant of the game. His kindness and generosity will stay
with all those who knew him.

Playing career

His playing career was that of a solid middle ranking professional. He
was three time New Zealand Champion, twice British Champion, played in
seven Olympiads and one Interzonal (see his Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wade_(chess_player) ) he also
played in a lot of tournaments against the world's best, especially in
Eastern Europe and Cuba (playing in a number of Capablanca Memorial
tournaments). He regarded himself lucky to do so and bemoaned the fact
that the top players don't play against a wider range of opponents.
His last major event was the Staunton Memorial in London in July where
he was really set up to lose, even a single draw would have left him
with a higher rating, he fought gamely it has to be said. A far better
result was achieved in 2006 in the Queenstown Chess Classic where he
scored 6/10 including a draw against the winner Murray Chandler. He
played a final game for the Athenium Chess Club in recent weeks.

It is not really in his playing results however that his influence
lies. He used to have the reputation of playing maverick openings. He
lived to see a number of these "Wade Variations" make it to use and
respectability at the very highest level.

Source: TWIC

Phil Innes

Date: 22 Dec 2008 07:53:27
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

Bob Wade would respond to draw offers by shouting "Help! I'm being
oppressed!"

Date: 22 Dec 2008 06:17:35
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 22, 8:50=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 22, 4:21=A0am, Offramp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Bob Wade was an ANARCHIST who would not allow his thoughts to stray
> > away from provoking murder and mayhem long enough to fully concentrate
> > on his chess, hence his lowly IM rank.
>
> > Merry Festivus to all!!
>
> Do you remember Blair/Orwell's group in Spain? They were called
> Syndicalist-Anarchists.

Here we see a member of that group in debate against someone
espousing a more conservative view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D1z3CmocHF5g

Date: 22 Dec 2008 05:50:12
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 22, 4:21=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> Bob Wade was an ANARCHIST who would not allow his thoughts to stray
> away from provoking murder and mayhem long enough to fully concentrate
> on his chess, hence his lowly IM rank.
>
> Merry Festivus to all!!

Do you remember Blair/Orwell's group in Spain? They were called
Syndicalist-Anarchists. They were the democrats who fought the
fascists - then they fought the communists, or were murdered by them.
Blair barely escaped with his life.

Phil Innes

Date: 22 Dec 2008 01:21:14
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

Bob Wade was an ANARCHIST who would not allow his thoughts to stray
away from provoking murder and mayhem long enough to fully concentrate
on his chess, hence his lowly IM rank.

Merry Festivus to all!!

Date: 21 Dec 2008 16:22:24
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 21, 5:34=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 20, 11:00=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > and similar instances.
> > > =A0 However, this may well be his most ambitious fabrication yet. Una=
ble
> > > to explain how Wade could have held pro-communist views in 1949,
> > What? That's no quotation. Who asked me that? Who asserts he did hold
> > communist views? What has communism to do with Stalinism?
>
> =A0 Allow me to explain...
>
> =A0 You see, there are these imbeciles who, having
> nothing better to do, have invented strong political
> statements to be placed in the unwitting mouth of
> BW, post mortem.
>
> =A0 One can learn a good deal about the imbeciles
> by watching how they squirm in the face of an
> imaginary threat of invasion by Mr. Stalin and his
> Russian stormtroopers. =A0 =A0 They appear to be
> overwhelmed by such irrational fears, and I believe
> they also imagine "capitalism" itself to be in grave
> danger from folks like, say, Mr. Botvinnik-- just
> going by what I've already seen here in rgc. =A0 It's
> downright hilarious (apart from the unfortunate
> state of their pathetic minds, that is).
>
> =A0 Personally, I am reminded of the hysterics
> regarding "Russian cheating" (mind you, it's not
> cheating itself that they find appalling) and all the
> idiocy posted here by certain ratpack members
> on the issue of mathematics and whatnot.
>
> =A0 Mr. Kingston posted a link a while back which
> went to an article by The Great Pedant in which
> a number of other hystericals ranted about BW's
> supposed "support" of communism; naturally,
> not one of those imbeciles fared any better in
> substatiating their claims than have the more
> recent nitwits, Mr. Kingston and Mr. Spin rad.
> No surprises there... .

Well, quite.

A very Merry Christmas to you comrade ;)

Phil

> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 21 Dec 2008 14:34:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 20, 11:00=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> > and similar instances.
> > =A0 However, this may well be his most ambitious fabrication yet. Unabl=
e
> > to explain how Wade could have held pro-communist views in 1949,

> What? That's no quotation. Who asked me that? Who asserts he did hold
> communist views? What has communism to do with Stalinism?

Allow me to explain...

You see, there are these imbeciles who, having
nothing better to do, have invented strong political
statements to be placed in the unwitting mouth of
BW, post mortem.

One can learn a good deal about the imbeciles
by watching how they squirm in the face of an
imaginary threat of invasion by Mr. Stalin and his
Russian stormtroopers. They appear to be
overwhelmed by such irrational fears, and I believe
they also imagine "capitalism" itself to be in grave
danger from folks like, say, Mr. Botvinnik-- just
going by what I've already seen here in rgc. It's
downright hilarious (apart from the unfortunate
state of their pathetic minds, that is).

Personally, I am reminded of the hysterics
regarding "Russian cheating" (mind you, it's not
cheating itself that they find appalling) and all the
idiocy posted here by certain ratpack members
on the issue of mathematics and whatnot.

Mr. Kingston posted a link a while back which
went to an article by The Great Pedant in which
a number of other hystericals ranted about BW's
supposed "support" of communism; naturally,
not one of those imbeciles fared any better in
substatiating their claims than have the more
recent nitwits, Mr. Kingston and Mr. Spin rad.
No surprises there... .

-- help bot

Date: 21 Dec 2008 14:20:18
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 21, 3:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 21, 1:31=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 9:23=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 20, 1:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 20, 12:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > > =A0 Typically, the last stage in this fabrication process see=
s Phil
> > > > > > > shifting ground, proclaiming that he and/or his critics meant
> > > > > > > something different all along. For example, when he claimed t=
hat the
> > > > > > > sentence "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" was not Spanish =
but "Andean,"
>
> > > > > > I never said that moron. I said it was Andean Spanish.
>
> > > > > =A0 See what I mean? Phil walks right into it, proving my point! =
ROFL,
> > > > > this is soooo easy. I quote him directly:
>
> > > > > =A0 "It is not Spanish, it is Andean as might be supposed from th=
e
> > > > > title, and is what language they took to themselves for themselve=
s,
> > > > > not to thee, and not to thy understanding." -- Phil Innes, 30 Aug=
2006
> > > > > 3:19 PM
>
> > > > It is not Castilian Spanish.
>
> > > =A0 Excuse me, Phil, but "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" most def=
initely
> > > *_is_* perfectly normal Castilian Spanish. Yo hablo Espa=F1ol, y lo
> > > reconozco cuando lo veo. That sentence remains Castilian Spanish
> > > whether spoken by a native of Madrid or Lima, just as the English
> > > translation "What mysteries surround them?" remains English whether
> > > spoken by a Brit, Yank, Aussie, Kiwi or Kenyan.
>
> > =A0 Since this is your own selection from the lyrics - and you first
> > complained about differences in spelling - do you not know chose in
> > innocuous phrase to 'compete' with?
>
> =A0 Jeez, Phil, you can't even speak English,

'Jeez' is English or Californian?

> supposedly your native
> language, and yet you presume to know about others? Is "do you not
> know chose in" Andean too?

? you insist on your own stupid rendering of something - and you
have a vast history of stupid renderings - remember, I have the files!
The messages you wrote about others, conspiring with others, and which
you 'cannot recall'

ROFL

> > =A0[BTW - Chessville has 3 lawyers contributing to it, an asst attorney
> > general as editor, an attorney as columnist, and a Spanish news editor
> > named Pablo. But thank you for skating ;)
>
> =A0 And Pablo too says "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" is Andean? If =
so,
> he knows Spanish no better than you do.

Is Andean? How come you insist on your own stupid

very stupid and mendacious

understanding, as if any other human being would take your context as
the one intended?

Isn't this how you fall out with everyone, actually?

> However, I am confident he
> would agree with me, and your mentioning him is just one of your usual
> snow-job bluffs.
>
> > > =A0 To return to this thread's nominal topic, here's a little more ab=
out
> > > Wade in 1949:
>
> > > =A0http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html#5899._Wade_in_Paris
>
> > Which contains the single issue that communists in Paris invited Wade
> > to a gig.
>
> > And what sort of gig was it?
>
> > =91The Bulletin reported that Wade, who was invited to Paris by the
> > Communist body the FSGT (F=E9d=E9ration Sportive et Gymnique du Travail=
),
> > was due to play a match against Rossolimo in the French capital but
> > that the F=E9d=E9ration Fran=E7aise des Echecs banned Rossolimo from
> > playing. Instead, there was a two-game match between Wade and Fran=E7oi=
s
> > Molnar. Both games were drawn.=92
>
> > > =A0 It's mainly in French; perhaps someone will be good enough to
> > > translate?
>
> > Gosh! Didn't communists in Beijing invite a US President to a gig? And
> > post-war communists in Italy host chess gigs?
>
> > Now - let us say someone can read the French text in the newspaper
> > provided in the article - what has communism in France to do with
> > Stalinism, according to Taylor Kingston, or indeed to his great hero,
> > the dwarf Edward Winter?
>
> > Winter himself makes less comment than does Kingston - but clearly he
> > wishes to intimate something or other.
>
> =A0 No, he was just passing on information about Wade,

'he was just passing on?'

ROFL

> to which I in
> turn provided a link. I can make some sense of the French text, but
> I'd be interested if a French-speaking reader (that leaves you out,
> Phil) could provide a decent translation.

Up yours Kingston - I see you duck the issues again, as well as
bravely snipping all the reasons you are interested in the subject.

You are the coward refused to ask Averbakh questions about his real
activities in the SU, no?

Yet you have the temerity to ask somone circa 1949 theirs?

Do people know enough about your interview with this character? You
whitewashed him.

That is what you are a posing lightweight completely out of your
depth, always have been.

Phil Innes

Date: 21 Dec 2008 13:46:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 3:09=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> It took a great deal of willful disbelief in reportage of the time to
> think in 1949 that the Soviet Union encouraged free political
> discussion. If you believe otherwise, I encourage you to go to any
> library with access to newspapers of the time, and do your own search.

And it takes quite a leap to jump from what BW in fact
wrote, all the way to accusations such as BW swooning
over Mr. Stalin, or BW suggesting that the USSR
encouraged "free" political discussion (in fact, BW wrote
that they were quite limited in scope).

We seem to have come to a standstill; those who have
grave difficulties with reading comprehension are stuck
on their tilt at windmills of their own devise. Those who
have already learned to read might wonder where BW
stood-- was he a socialist? a communist? neither?

And apart from say, communism, how might BW have
stood on Mr. Stalin himself (who is often substituted by
Mr. Spin-rad for communism or for the USSR, according
to his whims).

All this has little to do with chess -- apart from the
overwhelming dominance of Soviet players -- but in view
of our current financial troubles, it is interesting to see
how the military might of the former USSR has made it
a handy target for those who wish to delude themselves.

In the late 1990s, the Western world's economic
situation was nearly brought to its knees by the
collapse of LTCM -- run by Nobel laureates, no less;
now we find ourselves once again on the brink of
economic collapse-- a collapse which might easily be
used as a handy tool by which to bash capitalism
itself, as if failure by the idiots in charge proved the
failure of /capitalism itself/.

-- help bot

Date: 21 Dec 2008 13:18:53
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

If my poor friend <sob > could see this thread <sob> he would be so
upset <sob > he would probably kill himself <sob>....and SO WOULD I!!
<sob >

Date: 21 Dec 2008 13:11:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 17, 7:42=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> =A0 Good grief. Help-bot demanding "substantive evidence" is like Rush
> Limbaugh calling his critics fat. Jerry, stop wasting time on this
> troll.

Juvenile name-calling again? This seems to be one
of the /hallmarks/ of Mr. Kingston and his ilk. Perhaps
if he ever grows up, the poor chap will come to the
realization that ad hominem just doesn't cut it at the
Expert level. Granted, way down there in Class D or
whatever, it may still fly.

-- help bot

Date: 21 Dec 2008 12:31:54
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 21, 2:09=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Taylor Kingston might also like to know that I have a book by G.
> Cabrera Infante (C.N. 5897), Mea Cuba, which Edward Winter almost
> cites [he doesn't ref his sourceto a publication] - it contains a very
> good native appreciation of Capablanca, by a native [albeit, an exiled
> Cuban in London.]

Funny you should mention that book. It was the subject of a Chess
Note, #5897, just a few days ago:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html#5896._Definition_of_en_pass=
ant

However, Winter does not agree that the author's appreciation of
Capablanca is "very good"; on the contrary, he finds it rife with
factual errors. He focuses in particular on a questionable anecdote,
that Capablanca supposedly fell asleep at the board during his match
with Marshall in 1909.
If you read down a bit, to Chess Note #5900, you will find some
further commentary of mine on this claim, which bears a striking
resemblance to an actual incident between Fischer and Bisguier.

> As well as other jocularities, one chapter is nominated:
> Castroenteritis.

Cabrera Infante seems fond of puns, e.g. the title "Mea Cuba" being
apparently a pun on "mea culpa." A further double-entendre may lie in
the Spanish meaning of the title, which would translate into
colloquial American English as "Cuba pisses."

Date: 21 Dec 2008 12:12:51
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 21, 1:31=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 21, 9:23=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 1:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 20, 12:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > =A0 Typically, the last stage in this fabrication process sees =
Phil
> > > > > > shifting ground, proclaiming that he and/or his critics meant
> > > > > > something different all along. For example, when he claimed tha=
t the
> > > > > > sentence "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" was not Spanish bu=
t "Andean,"
>
> > > > > I never said that moron. I said it was Andean Spanish.
>
> > > > =A0 See what I mean? Phil walks right into it, proving my point! RO=
FL,
> > > > this is soooo easy. I quote him directly:
>
> > > > =A0 "It is not Spanish, it is Andean as might be supposed from the
> > > > title, and is what language they took to themselves for themselves,
> > > > not to thee, and not to thy understanding." -- Phil Innes, 30 Aug 2=
006
> > > > 3:19 PM
>
> > > It is not Castilian Spanish.
>
> > =A0 Excuse me, Phil, but "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" most defin=
itely
> > *_is_* perfectly normal Castilian Spanish. Yo hablo Espa=F1ol, y lo
> > reconozco cuando lo veo. That sentence remains Castilian Spanish
> > whether spoken by a native of Madrid or Lima, just as the English
> > translation "What mysteries surround them?" remains English whether
> > spoken by a Brit, Yank, Aussie, Kiwi or Kenyan.
>
> Since this is your own selection from the lyrics - and you first
> complained about differences in spelling - do you not know chose in
> innocuous phrase to 'compete' with?

Jeez, Phil, you can't even speak English, supposedly your native
language, and yet you presume to know about others? Is "do you not
know chose in" Andean too?

> [BTW - Chessville has 3 lawyers contributing to it, an asst attorney
> general as editor, an attorney as columnist, and a Spanish news editor
> named Pablo. But thank you for skating ;)

And Pablo too says "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" is Andean? If so,
he knows Spanish no better than you do. However, I am confident he
would agree with me, and your mentioning him is just one of your usual
snow-job bluffs.

> > =A0 To return to this thread's nominal topic, here's a little more abou=
t
> > Wade in 1949:
>
> > =A0http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html#5899._Wade_in_Paris
>
> Which contains the single issue that communists in Paris invited Wade
> to a gig.
>
> And what sort of gig was it?
>
> =91The Bulletin reported that Wade, who was invited to Paris by the
> Communist body the FSGT (F=E9d=E9ration Sportive et Gymnique du Travail),
> was due to play a match against Rossolimo in the French capital but
> that the F=E9d=E9ration Fran=E7aise des Echecs banned Rossolimo from
> playing. Instead, there was a two-game match between Wade and Fran=E7ois
> Molnar. Both games were drawn.=92
>
> > =A0 It's mainly in French; perhaps someone will be good enough to
> > translate?
>
> Gosh! Didn't communists in Beijing invite a US President to a gig? And
> post-war communists in Italy host chess gigs?
>
> Now - let us say someone can read the French text in the newspaper
> provided in the article - what has communism in France to do with
> Stalinism, according to Taylor Kingston, or indeed to his great hero,
> the dwarf Edward Winter?
>
> Winter himself makes less comment than does Kingston - but clearly he
> wishes to intimate something or other.

No, he was just passing on information about Wade, to which I in
turn provided a link. I can make some sense of the French text, but
I'd be interested if a French-speaking reader (that leaves you out,
Phil) could provide a decent translation.

Date: 21 Dec 2008 11:09:17
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

Taylor Kingston might also like to know that I have a book by G.
Cabrera Infante (C.N. 5897), Mea Cuba, which Edward Winter almost
cites [he doesn't ref his sourceto a publication] - it contains a very
good native appreciation of Capablanca, by a native [albeit, an exiled
Cuban in London.]

As well as other jocularities, one chapter is nominated:
Castroenteritis.

Phil Innes

Date: 21 Dec 2008 10:31:44
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 21, 9:23=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 20, 1:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 12:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > =A0 Typically, the last stage in this fabrication process sees Ph=
il
> > > > > shifting ground, proclaiming that he and/or his critics meant
> > > > > something different all along. For example, when he claimed that =
the
> > > > > sentence "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" was not Spanish but =
"Andean,"
>
> > > > I never said that moron. I said it was Andean Spanish.
>
> > > =A0 See what I mean? Phil walks right into it, proving my point! ROFL=
,
> > > this is soooo easy. I quote him directly:
>
> > > =A0 "It is not Spanish, it is Andean as might be supposed from the
> > > title, and is what language they took to themselves for themselves,
> > > not to thee, and not to thy understanding." -- Phil Innes, 30 Aug 200=
6
> > > 3:19 PM
>
> > It is not Castilian Spanish.
>
> =A0 Excuse me, Phil, but "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" most definit=
ely
> *_is_* perfectly normal Castilian Spanish. Yo hablo Espa=F1ol, y lo
> reconozco cuando lo veo. That sentence remains Castilian Spanish
> whether spoken by a native of Madrid or Lima, just as the English
> translation "What mysteries surround them?" remains English whether
> spoken by a Brit, Yank, Aussie, Kiwi or Kenyan.

Since this is your own selection from the lyrics - and you first
complained about differences in spelling - do you not know chose in
innocuous phrase to 'compete' with?

[BTW - Chessville has 3 lawyers contributing to it, an asst attorney
general as editor, an attorney as columnist, and a Spanish news editor
named Pablo. But thank you for skating ;)

> =A0 To return to this thread's nominal topic, here's a little more about
> Wade in 1949:
>
> =A0http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html#5899._Wade_in_Paris

Which contains the single issue that communists in Paris invited Wade
to a gig.

And what sort of gig was it?

=91The Bulletin reported that Wade, who was invited to Paris by the
Communist body the FSGT (F=E9d=E9ration Sportive et Gymnique du Travail),
was due to play a match against Rossolimo in the French capital but
that the F=E9d=E9ration Fran=E7aise des Echecs banned Rossolimo from
playing. Instead, there was a two-game match between Wade and Fran=E7ois
Molnar. Both games were drawn.=92

> =A0 It's mainly in French; perhaps someone will be good enough to
> translate?

Gosh! Didn't communists in Beijing invite a US President to a gig? And
post-war communists in Italy host chess gigs?

Now - let us say someone can read the French text in the newspaper
provided in the article - what has communism in France to do with
Stalinism, according to Taylor Kingston, or indeed to his great hero,
the dwarf Edward Winter?

Winter himself makes less comment than does Kingston - but clearly he
wishes to intimate something or other.

In my time, our Team Captain was invited by Czech communists to play
in their country [he played Ivkov]. Peter may or may not have been a
communist [laugh] but again, isn't the question to do with Stalin's
Russia, and how people should know the dark side of that experiment?

Phil Innes

Date: 21 Dec 2008 10:57:49
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:31:44 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

> what has communism in France to do with Stalinism...?

French communists were notorious Stalinists.

Date: 21 Dec 2008 07:01:53
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

Date: 21 Dec 2008 06:23:50
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 20, 1:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 20, 12:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> > > > =A0 Typically, the last stage in this fabrication process sees Phil
> > > > shifting ground, proclaiming that he and/or his critics meant
> > > > something different all along. For example, when he claimed that th=
e
> > > > sentence "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" was not Spanish but "A=
ndean,"
>
> > > I never said that moron. I said it was Andean Spanish.
>
> > =A0 See what I mean? Phil walks right into it, proving my point! ROFL,
> > this is soooo easy. I quote him directly:
>
> > =A0 "It is not Spanish, it is Andean as might be supposed from the
> > title, and is what language they took to themselves for themselves,
> > not to thee, and not to thy understanding." -- Phil Innes, 30 Aug 2006
> > 3:19 PM
>
> It is not Castilian Spanish.

Excuse me, Phil, but "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" most definitely
*_is_* perfectly normal Castilian Spanish. Yo hablo Espa=F1ol, y lo
reconozco cuando lo veo. That sentence remains Castilian Spanish
whether spoken by a native of Madrid or Lima, just as the English
translation "What mysteries surround them?" remains English whether
spoken by a Brit, Yank, Aussie, Kiwi or Kenyan.

To return to this thread's nominal topic, here's a little more about
Wade in 1949:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html#5899._Wade_in_Paris

It's mainly in French; perhaps someone will be good enough to
translate?

Date: 20 Dec 2008 11:01:16
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

[email protected] wrote:

> And you therefore give up the point that you are arguing with Blair
> and Denker, right?

Neither Mr. Blair nor GM Denker have posted to this thread. So it
appears Mr. Kingston is arguing with you. Again.

Date: 20 Dec 2008 10:39:11
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 20, 12:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 20, 12:00=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 9:41=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Then, when he is
> > > challenged, he only digs a deeper hole for himself, insisting on the
> > > truth of what he's made up. We've seen this before, in the "Andean"
> > > incident,
>
> > I think that was your Andean incident wasn't it? You denied there were
> > even native languages [there are 5 groups] then you denied they spoke
> > a different form of Spanish than Castillian - and from Mexico.
>
> =A0 Never said any such thing, Phil.

In fact you never 'said' anything. You just carped on what I said.

> As I pointed out above, this is
> your typical modus operandi =97 when caught in a mistake, you just dig a
> deeper hole, and make up things people never said.

The mistake was? For Heaven's Sake Kingston, get it out of your
system, quote me, or say what you 'said'. The point of all is that you
never present anything whatever to support your opinion as being the
only one available to people as the true religion. In this instance
you now shy away from the substance - as you always do.

>
>
> > > =A0 Typically, the last stage in this fabrication process sees Phil
> > > shifting ground, proclaiming that he and/or his critics meant
> > > something different all along. For example, when he claimed that the
> > > sentence "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" was not Spanish but "And=
ean,"
>
> > I never said that moron. I said it was Andean Spanish.
>
> =A0 See what I mean? Phil walks right into it, proving my point! ROFL,
> this is soooo easy. I quote him directly:
>
> =A0 "It is not Spanish, it is Andean as might be supposed from the
> title, and is what language they took to themselves for themselves,
> not to thee, and not to thy understanding." -- Phil Innes, 30 Aug 2006
> 3:19 PM

It is not Castilian Spanish. Like California-speak is not English
English. Get it? Of COURSE it is a form of Spanish, which explains the
second half of the sentence.

> =A0 To our Phil, saying "It is not Spanish" somehow now means "It's a
> kind of Spanish." Lord, but this is rich.

You cut all the other references to what only a moron could think of
what anyone said - that is a pedant literalist who must have all the
context explained to him at great length.

And you therefore give up the point that you are arguing with Blair
and Denker, right?

But if you want to insist that I cannot differentiate a Spanish form
as a variant of the language itself, then go ahead, piss away!

Meanwhile - you intruded with your soft understanding on a man's obit
- cut the challenge to it of how YOU would know diddly, and continue
to blagh on.

What a piece of no-work is Our Tinker Taylor!

Phil Innes

Date: 20 Dec 2008 09:40:37
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 20, 12:00=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 20, 9:41=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Then, when he is
> > challenged, he only digs a deeper hole for himself, insisting on the
> > truth of what he's made up. We've seen this before, in the "Andean"
> > incident,
>
> I think that was your Andean incident wasn't it? You denied there were
> even native languages [there are 5 groups] then you denied they spoke
> a different form of Spanish than Castillian - and from Mexico.

Never said any such thing, Phil. As I pointed out above, this is
your typical modus operandi =97 when caught in a mistake, you just dig a
deeper hole, and make up things people never said.

>
> > =A0 Typically, the last stage in this fabrication process sees Phil
> > shifting ground, proclaiming that he and/or his critics meant
> > something different all along. For example, when he claimed that the
> > sentence "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" was not Spanish but "Andea=
n,"
>
> I never said that moron. I said it was Andean Spanish.

See what I mean? Phil walks right into it, proving my point! ROFL,
this is soooo easy. I quote him directly:

"It is not Spanish, it is Andean as might be supposed from the
title, and is what language they took to themselves for themselves,
not to thee, and not to thy understanding." -- Phil Innes, 30 Aug 2006
3:19 PM

To our Phil, saying "It is not Spanish" somehow now means "It's a
kind of Spanish." Lord, but this is rich.

Date: 20 Dec 2008 09:00:54
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 20, 9:41=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 20, 9:11=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 9:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > =A0I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > > > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> > > =A0 Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding o=
ut,
> > > compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > > > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> > > =A0 Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything=
at
> > > all about US political discussion in 1949? I may be going out on a
> > > limb here, but these might have been possible sources:
>
> > > =A0 Newspapers
> > > =A0 Magazines
> > > =A0 Books
> > > =A0 Radio broadcasts
> > > =A0 Newsreels
> > > =A0 Television (to a limited extent)
> > > =A0 The Congressional Record
> > > =A0 Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> > > =A0 Word of mouth
>
> > > =A0 Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personal=
ly
> > > remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> > > existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> > > things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> > > 1950s.
>
> > > > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed =
to
> > > > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > > > anthropological one.
>
> > > =A0 Wow, this is anthropology?
>
> > > =A0 My old man's an anthropologist,
> > > =A0 What do you think about that?
> > > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> > > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> > > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> > > =A0 And an anthropologist's shoes,
> > > =A0 And every Saturday evening,
> > > =A0 He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> > > =A0 And some day, if I can,
> > > =A0 I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> > > =A0 Same as my old man.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiFVrtjUmz7c
>
> > P Innes' nutty comments about England in the post-war period remind me
> > of his bizarre assertion that there is "no evidence" Cambridge Springs
> > 1904 took place. That was another Innes-world without newspapers, it
> > seems.
>
> =A0 I think what we have here is simply Phil's tendency, when he lacks
> any substantive evidence for a certain stand, to resort to offhand
> fabrication, thinking no one will challenge him.

Vaguer Kingston who doesn't have the slightest idea of post-war
publishing himself - now refutes Eric Blair George Orwell] and also GM
Arnold Denker. Which certainly aren't the only sources of information
- my mother survived the Blitz in London - as indeed her whole
generation would affirm drastic shortages in post war UK.

Here we have the fatuous Brennanbeing affirmed by Kingston who says I
[not Blair, nor Denker, nor my parents and their generation] know what
they are talking about - whereas he, without citing anything specific
to do with post-war reporting of the SU, happily contradicts others in
his usual pissy way - then makes comments about them.

> Then, when he is
> challenged, he only digs a deeper hole for himself, insisting on the
> truth of what he's made up. We've seen this before, in the "Andean"
> incident,

I think that was your Andean incident wasn't it? You denied there were
even native languages [there are 5 groups] then you denied they spoke
a different form of Spanish than Castillian - and from Mexico. My
friend, a PhD in English IS a native American, and she says such
anecdotes are typical of Yanqies.

Again Kingstons merely asserted others were wrong, then insisted on
it, becoming increasingly pissy - while presenting absolutely no
knowledge himself.

> with his claim that the Nottingham 1936 tournament book did
> not report the final standings correctly,

Desperate now, I cited the encyclopedia and the author of the article
[Hooper] which Kingstomn immediately said was wrong! Again he has no
evidence for his 'take' on things - and actually always thinks he is
right.

> and similar instances.
> =A0 However, this may well be his most ambitious fabrication yet. Unable
> to explain how Wade could have held pro-communist views in 1949,

What? That's no quotation. Who asked me that? Who asserts he did hold
communist views? What has communism to do with Stalinism?

> he
> invents an information blackout that prevents anyone in Britain from
> knowing about the outside world.

There you go - Kingston refutes Blair, Denker, and without a word to
the actually conditions of the people at the time, who were still
rationed until 1953.

> =A0 Typically, the last stage in this fabrication process sees Phil
> shifting ground, proclaiming that he and/or his critics meant
> something different all along. For example, when he claimed that the
> sentence "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" was not Spanish but "Andean,=
"

I never said that moron. I said it was Andean Spanish.

> I countered that it was in fact perfectly normal, standard Spanish,
> and that there was no one language called Andean.

I must have missed that in your 20 posts on the subject. But what I
did not miss is that your comment was that y Spanish spelling of the
lyric was not Castilian.

> In later posts, Phil
> later tried to misrepresent my view as being that there are no native
> languages in the Andean region of South America, an absurd claim I
> never made.

Perhaps you should do your mouth a favor - say clearly the basis for
your own remarks - since in this one post you casually insult all the
people I named, and present nothing of your own except some vague
reference to Wade and communism.

Why don't you tell us how he practiced his communism in the UK?
Surely, if he didn't do that then his interest in it was no different
than any other intelligent man's at the time - that is to say, an
intellectual interest in the /ideal/ form of government, as they
thought it to be.

> =A0 So, eventually I expect we will see Phil misrepresenting this
> thread's statements by Spinrad, Walker, Brennen, myself et al in ways
> quite bizarre.

How can I misrepresent anyone who says nothing?

> Say, that we believed the Soviet state was not under
> Communist control until after 1949,

What's this? You should stick to the Beach Boys Kingston, and stop
inventing things about others. You are a pathetic lightweight heavy
only in your opinions.

> or that Charles Dickens was a
> Communist, or that Wade did not know how to read, or some such
> nonsense. Mark my words =97 even though he reads this, he will probably
> do it all the same.

Any reader who reads this can determine for themselves if Taylor
Kingston is the male equivalent of a dumb blond. A dumb pissy blond.

Phil Innes

Date: 20 Dec 2008 08:56:32
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 20, 11:43=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 20, 9:11=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:

> > P Innes' nutty comments about England in the post-war period remind me
> > of his bizarre assertion that there is "no evidence" Cambridge Springs
> > 1904 took place. That was another Innes-world without newspapers, it
> > seems.
>
> I wish my bitch was more intelligent.
>
> Dickens and other primary works being out of print was Eric Blair's
> 'nutty' observation!

"I think I mentioned that not even Dickens was in print in England..."
- Phil Innes

This is turning into a P Innes greatest hits thread. This is now the
second time he's tried to palm off his chuckleheaded statements on
George Orwell. Folks might recall his earlier statement about Orwell
and Henry Miller....

***************
And now, the history of P Innes and his bogus George Orwell
"quotation", as compiled by Dr. Louis Blair:
_
Some quotes from the rec.games.chess.politics:
_
"... Didn't [Henry Miller] write some medical texts on the topic
of cancer? Or was he a Nin-ny from the 1930s?" - Mike
Murray (Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:14:20 -0800)
_
_
"Good God!
_
He is perhaps the only American writer of note after Clemens.
...
_
An anecdote: When Orwell went to Paris in 1944/45 as
correspondent, he believed [rightly] that the communists were
out to kill him. He asked Miller for protection, and Miller gave
him a pistol and a couple of guys to watch his back. (Orwell
only accepted the pistol.) ..." - Phil Innes (Thu, 04 Dec 2003
21:32:55 GMT)
_
_
"Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Wolfe, Thurber, Vonnegut,
Updike, Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, Albee - all
also-rans in Phil's book." - Neil Brennen (5 Dec 2003
02:43:00 -0800)
_
_
"I like Vonnegut, and out-of-period particularly like Hawthorne
[but not the new bio]. Recently I read Mitchener's Iberia, a
cultural and travelogue in Spain which he himself thought his
best work. Mitchener liked Spanish-era Hemingway.
_
Fitzgerald is difficult - books you have to read are more
difficult to assess, but possibly the most elegant writer in
your group. Of course, and Eliot, though he lived in London.
..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:39:57 GMT)
_
(Mike Murray indicated that his note was a joke.)
_
Some quotes from humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
_
"Anyone care to guess which HLAS poster wrote the following
mind-boggling statement?
_
'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
only American writer of note after Clemens.'"
- Neil Brennen (6 Dec 2003 15:54:09 -0800)
_
_
"George Orwell! I win :) ..." - Phil Innes (Mon, 08 Dec 2003
12:31:42 GMT)
_
_
"... Anyone care to guess which HLAS poster wrote the
following mind-boggling statement?
_
'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
only American writer of note after Clemens.'
_
..." - Neil Brennen (Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:09:58 GMT)
_
_
"... Perhaps if he completed my phrase by saying, 'according
to George Orwell' and the time he wrote it, which was 1945, it
would have another sense entirely. But of course, although I
had written that originally, and have mentioned it several times
since, there is no intention here to be honest. ..." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:18:55 GMT)
_
_
"... Those with an IQ greater than their shoe size might note
than in [the Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:32:55 GMT] posting Innes
doesn't attribute the remark about Miller to George Orwell.
Instead he passes it off as his own. ..." - Neil Brennen (Tue,
24 Aug 2004 01:16:15 GMT)
-
-
"If there was EVER any doubt that I was quoting Orwell on
Miller <I did not try to pass it off as my own - it is a
relatively
famous quotation! > then that would be removed by some half
dozen corrections I have made to your claims, introduced to
completely irrelevant discussions, and intending to defame
me or other persons. ..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 24 Aug 2004
11:23:17 GMT)
_
_
"I Googled up your old post last night. Neil quoted it exactly.
No attribution to Orwell was made or implied by you. ...
_
If you are now saying that it's an Orwell quote, you might
give us the title of the essay from which you took it. His
full-length piece on Miller, 'Inside the Whale', contains no
quote like that." - Buffalo (Tue, 24 Aug 2004
17:40:30 +0000 (UTC))
_
_
"You missed 2 things- the posts around it, and the secondly
the frequent corrections to Nil's rendering , which avoids any
context. Besides, he lies when he says I claimed them as
my own words. If I originally cited Orwell on Miller... then...?
_
Why not mention it, or doesn't your curiosity extend that far?
...
Yes I am saying its an Orwell quote - but what matter is it
to you - what depends on it? ..." - Phil Innes (Tue,
24 Aug 2004 20:39:53 GMT)
_
_
"I do not need to look at any corrections to 'Neil's rendering',
since it wasn't Neil that wrote the original post. I also 'read
the posts around it' in the rest of the thread and there is
nothing that connects that quote with George Orwell.
...
You didn't cite Orwell on Miller. You didn't mention Orwell
until the next paragraph. ..." - Buffalo (Tue, 24 Aug 2004
21:30:41 +0000 (UTC))
_
_
"... I said [Neil Brennen] lies that I claimed them as my
own words. And here you cite the context which directly
spoke of Orwell, what a curious inquiry you make. ..."
- Phil Innes (Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:10:19 GMT)
_
_
"... Innes is never going to admit that he did not quote
Orwell, even though anyone can google his post and
ascertain that he did not. ..." - Tom Veal (25 Aug 2004
16:01:42 -0700)
_
_
"... I do and did claim to quote Orwell! I NEVER claimed not
to.
_
In the same piece of writing both Orwell and Miller are
mentioned, as they are in the surrounding posts. ...
...
... It would indeed be a cheap 'deception' to make pretense
such a statement was my own - and a follish one! Especially
since on its face it would be immediately challenged as
peculiar opinion if the circumstances of its writing were not
that Orwell was its author in 1941 [!] ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
26 Aug 2004 12:52:24 GMT)
_
_
"Innes claimed it was a 'quotation' - his word - from Orwell.
The closest Orwell comes to the Innes-anity is the following
from Inside the Whale:
_
'Here in my opinion is the only imaginative
prose-writer of the slightest value who has
appeared among the English-speaking races
for some years past. Even if that is objected
to as an overstatement, it will probably be
admitted that Miller is a writer out of the
ordinary, worth more than a single glance ...'
_
..." - Neil Brennen (Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:13:46 GMT)
_
_
"... Did I say it was a quotation or citation from Orwell, or
about Orwell? ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 27 Aug 2004
20:29:19 GMT)
_
_
"Well, here are your exact words, from this very thread:
_
'I do and did claim to quote Orwell! I NEVER
claimed not to.'
_
..." - David L. Webb (Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:15:01 -0400)
_
_
"Thank you. But this is no answer to the issue. I am quoting
what Orwell said. This was his statement on Miller. There
are several reporters of it. But, as mentioned elsewhere, this
issue has nothing to do with if Orwell ever made this
statement, but that Nil suggested that I claimed it as my
own. ..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:47:42 GMT)
_
_
"... If you understood the proper use of quotation marks,
Philsy, then this misunderstanding might never have
happened. Your fabrication of a Orwell quotation, however,
is another matter. ..." - Neil Brennen (Sat, 28 Aug 2004
13:47:07 GMT)
_
(The argument went on through September and into October.)
_
Later, back at rec.games.chess.politics:
_
"Dear Neil, which 'Quotation' do you wish to know about?
..." - Phil Innes (Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:18:41 GMT)
_
_
" 'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
only American writer of note after Clemens.'
_
OK Phil. What is your source for the Orwell 'quotation'? ..."
- Neil Brennen (30 Nov 2004 17:29:38 -0800)
_
_
"Orwell!" - Phil Innes (Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:41:51 GMT)
_
Later:
_
"... perhaps you could provide the source of the following:
_
'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
only American writer of note after Clemens.'"
- Neil Brennen (12 May 2005 05:00:47 -0700)
_
_
"... Orwell made the comment in 1941! ..." - Phil Innes
(Thu, 12 May 2005 13:16:12 GMT)
_
And today we have:
_
"... this was a quotation from Orwell's biographer, ..."
- Phil Innes (Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:53:30 GMT)

Date: 20 Dec 2008 08:43:38
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 20, 9:11=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 9:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> > =A0 Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding out=
,
> > compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> > =A0 Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything a=
t
> > all about US political discussion in 1949? I may be going out on a
> > limb here, but these might have been possible sources:
>
> > =A0 Newspapers
> > =A0 Magazines
> > =A0 Books
> > =A0 Radio broadcasts
> > =A0 Newsreels
> > =A0 Television (to a limited extent)
> > =A0 The Congressional Record
> > =A0 Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> > =A0 Word of mouth
>
> > =A0 Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personally
> > remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> > existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> > things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> > 1950s.
>
> > > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed to
> > > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > > anthropological one.
>
> > =A0 Wow, this is anthropology?
>
> > =A0 My old man's an anthropologist,
> > =A0 What do you think about that?
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> > =A0 And an anthropologist's shoes,
> > =A0 And every Saturday evening,
> > =A0 He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> > =A0 And some day, if I can,
> > =A0 I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> > =A0 Same as my old man.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiFVrtjUmz7c
>
> P Innes' nutty comments about England in the post-war period remind me
> of his bizarre assertion that there is "no evidence" Cambridge Springs
> 1904 took place. That was another Innes-world without newspapers, it
> seems.

I wish my bitch was more intelligent.

Dickens and other primary works being out of print was Eric Blair's
'nutty' observation!

As for his next ignorant proclamation, this time not a mistake but a
deliberate corruption - I said literally that, 'no evidence' remains
from the tournament - not the fatuous and idiotic comment that the
Tournament didn't take place; but there is not one photo, lost pawn or
gamescore to be had in Cambridge Springs, not even in the historical
society nor the library - nor in the archive of nearby Edinboro
university.

Brennan knows this, but continues to distort - since he gets a kick
out of repressing anyone who knows more than he does. Which is
approximately everyone.

As a recent poster pointed out - he obviously suffers from envy.

Phil Innes

Date: 20 Dec 2008 06:41:56
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 20, 9:11=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 9:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> > =A0 Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding out=
,
> > compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> > =A0 Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything a=
t
> > all about US political discussion in 1949? I may be going out on a
> > limb here, but these might have been possible sources:
>
> > =A0 Newspapers
> > =A0 Magazines
> > =A0 Books
> > =A0 Radio broadcasts
> > =A0 Newsreels
> > =A0 Television (to a limited extent)
> > =A0 The Congressional Record
> > =A0 Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> > =A0 Word of mouth
>
> > =A0 Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personally
> > remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> > existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> > things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> > 1950s.
>
> > > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed to
> > > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > > anthropological one.
>
> > =A0 Wow, this is anthropology?
>
> > =A0 My old man's an anthropologist,
> > =A0 What do you think about that?
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> > =A0 And an anthropologist's shoes,
> > =A0 And every Saturday evening,
> > =A0 He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> > =A0 And some day, if I can,
> > =A0 I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> > =A0 Same as my old man.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiFVrtjUmz7c
>
> P Innes' nutty comments about England in the post-war period remind me
> of his bizarre assertion that there is "no evidence" Cambridge Springs
> 1904 took place. That was another Innes-world without newspapers, it
> seems.

I think what we have here is simply Phil's tendency, when he lacks
any substantive evidence for a certain stand, to resort to offhand
fabrication, thinking no one will challenge him. Then, when he is
challenged, he only digs a deeper hole for himself, insisting on the
truth of what he's made up. We've seen this before, in the "Andean"
incident, with his claim that the Nottingham 1936 tournament book did
not report the final standings correctly, and similar instances.
However, this may well be his most ambitious fabrication yet. Unable
to explain how Wade could have held pro-communist views in 1949, he
invents an information blackout that prevents anyone in Britain from
knowing about the outside world.
Typically, the last stage in this fabrication process sees Phil
shifting ground, proclaiming that he and/or his critics meant
something different all along. For example, when he claimed that the
sentence "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?" was not Spanish but "Andean,"
I countered that it was in fact perfectly normal, standard Spanish,
and that there was no one language called Andean. In later posts, Phil
later tried to misrepresent my view as being that there are no native
languages in the Andean region of South America, an absurd claim I
never made.
So, eventually I expect we will see Phil misrepresenting this
thread's statements by Spinrad, Walker, Brennen, myself et al in ways
quite bizarre. Say, that we believed the Soviet state was not under
Communist control until after 1949, or that Charles Dickens was a
Communist, or that Wade did not know how to read, or some such
nonsense. Mark my words =97 even though he reads this, he will probably
do it all the same.

Date: 20 Dec 2008 06:11:40
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

Date: 19 Dec 2008 22:35:06
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 7:08=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 4:09=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
Yes, you can imagine my surprise that despite the assurances of the
eminent Innes, the first London Times to mention Stalin in 1949 was a
January 3 article which must have escaped the vigorous censorship of
any negative news about Stalin seemed to treat the Berlin blockade as
a brutal attempt to impose communist dictatorship on a city which
preferred democratic rule.

I am not trying to introduce some radical viewpoint here; I don't
think it is news to anybody of any political stripe that Stalin was a
particularly nasty dictator, and that by 1949 any illusions about the
benevolence of his regime were hard to maintain.

Jerry Spinrad

>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 8:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > =A0I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > > > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> > > =A0 Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding o=
ut,
> > > compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > > > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> > > =A0 Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything=
at
> > > all about US political discussion in 1949? I may be going out on a
> > > limb here, but these might have been possible sources:
>
> > > =A0 Newspapers
> > > =A0 Magazines
> > > =A0 Books
> > > =A0 Radio broadcasts
> > > =A0 Newsreels
> > > =A0 Television (to a limited extent)
> > > =A0 The Congressional Record
> > > =A0 Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> > > =A0 Word of mouth
>
> > Just for fun, I went to a database of old newspapers, and searched for
> > Stalin starting with January 1, 1949. There were huge numbers of
> > articles about the oppressiveness of the Soviet government. One of the
> > first pieces was a very interesting discussion of Sulzberger on the
> > paradoxes of the Soviet system, which included wonderment that there
> > were westerners naive enough to believe that their hopes lay in
> > following such a brutal dictatorship.
>
> > I then went to 1930 and tried the same thing, and found many articles
> > on Stalin's war against the Kulaks, shooting of priests, and general
> > terror. One of the first was a careful discussion by Kerensky, in
> > which he advocated having relations with the Soviet Union so the rest
> > of the world could better expose the true ugliness of the system
> > (which he described in some detail).
>
> > It took a great deal of willful disbelief in reportage of the time to
> > think in 1949 that the Soviet Union encouraged free political
> > discussion. If you believe otherwise, I encourage you to go to any
> > library with access to newspapers of the time, and do your own search.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> =A0 Ah, but Jerry, according to our Phil, there was no way anyone in
> Britain could possibly have had access to any of the sources you have
> mentioned. In the England of that time, Wade could not have read any
> newspapers, magazine or books, the government-controlled radio
> suppressed all anti-Soviet reports, and Wade could not afford whatever
> it would cost to talk to anyone who knew anything. Basically, Great
> Britan experienced a total information blackout about the USSR for at
> least 15 years after WW II, the way Innes has it.
> =A0 Which makes one wonder: how could Winston Churchill possibly have
> known what he knew in 1946, when he delivered his famous "Iron
> Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri? See, for examplehttp://www.youtube.c=
om/watch?v=3Djvax5VUvjWQ.
> =A0 =A0I suppose, if Phil is right, Churchill was just guessing, and of
> course the speech must have gotten no coverage at all back in the UK,
> so Wade remained blithely unaware of it.
>
>
>
> > > =A0 Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personal=
ly
> > > remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> > > existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> > > things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> > > 1950s.
>
> > > > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed =
to
> > > > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > > > anthropological one.
>
> > > =A0 Wow, this is anthropology?
>
> > > =A0 My old man's an anthropologist,
> > > =A0 What do you think about that?
> > > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> > > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> > > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> > > =A0 And an anthropologist's shoes,
> > > =A0 And every Saturday evening,
> > > =A0 He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> > > =A0 And some day, if I can,
> > > =A0 I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> > > =A0 Same as my old man.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiFVrtjUmz7c-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 19 Dec 2008 21:27:45
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 8:46=A0pm, Andy Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> [1949:]
>
> > I think I mentioned that not even Dickens was in print in England -
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The search
>
> =A0http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=3DCharles+Dickens&yrh=
=3D...
>
> shows plenty of copies published, let alone in print, in England
> in 1949.
>
> > how American literature should appear is unknown - rationing of every
> > type ended in 1953, and there were chronic shortages of staples,
> > including paper, as well as money to pay for [then] expensive luxuries
> > such as books.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I possess dozens, perhaps hundreds, of books from 1949, a=
nd
> certainly hundreds+ from the immediate post-war period [say, 1945-53].
> These include children's books, both new and classics, from my own
> formative years, a wide collection from my parents, and quite a lot
> of second-hard textbooks and chess books from that era.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Penguin and Pelican books of the period were pretty cheap=
--
> less than a pint of beer.
>
> --
> Andy Walker
> Nottingham

Yes, P Innes, as usual, seems to be off the mark. I note that during
the war and for a few years afterward drama critic and diarist James
Agate was publishing two and three books a year. I can't imagine an
England that found paper for Agate and none for Dickens.

Date: 19 Dec 2008 17:08:43
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 4:09=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 8:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> > =A0 Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding out=
,
> > compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> > =A0 Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything a=
t
> > all about US political discussion in 1949? I may be going out on a
> > limb here, but these might have been possible sources:
>
> > =A0 Newspapers
> > =A0 Magazines
> > =A0 Books
> > =A0 Radio broadcasts
> > =A0 Newsreels
> > =A0 Television (to a limited extent)
> > =A0 The Congressional Record
> > =A0 Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> > =A0 Word of mouth
>
> Just for fun, I went to a database of old newspapers, and searched for
> Stalin starting with January 1, 1949. There were huge numbers of
> articles about the oppressiveness of the Soviet government. One of the
> first pieces was a very interesting discussion of Sulzberger on the
> paradoxes of the Soviet system, which included wonderment that there
> were westerners naive enough to believe that their hopes lay in
> following such a brutal dictatorship.
>
> I then went to 1930 and tried the same thing, and found many articles
> on Stalin's war against the Kulaks, shooting of priests, and general
> terror. One of the first was a careful discussion by Kerensky, in
> which he advocated having relations with the Soviet Union so the rest
> of the world could better expose the true ugliness of the system
> (which he described in some detail).
>
> It took a great deal of willful disbelief in reportage of the time to
> think in 1949 that the Soviet Union encouraged free political
> discussion. If you believe otherwise, I encourage you to go to any
> library with access to newspapers of the time, and do your own search.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Ah, but Jerry, according to our Phil, there was no way anyone in
Britain could possibly have had access to any of the sources you have
mentioned. In the England of that time, Wade could not have read any
newspapers, magazine or books, the government-controlled radio
suppressed all anti-Soviet reports, and Wade could not afford whatever
it would cost to talk to anyone who knew anything. Basically, Great
Britan experienced a total information blackout about the USSR for at
least 15 years after WW II, the way Innes has it.
Which makes one wonder: how could Winston Churchill possibly have
known what he knew in 1946, when he delivered his famous "Iron
Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri? See, for example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Djvax5VUvjWQ.
I suppose, if Phil is right, Churchill was just guessing, and of
course the speech must have gotten no coverage at all back in the UK,
so Wade remained blithely unaware of it.

> > =A0 Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personally
> > remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> > existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> > things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> > 1950s.
>
> > > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed to
> > > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > > anthropological one.
>
> > =A0 Wow, this is anthropology?
>
> > =A0 My old man's an anthropologist,
> > =A0 What do you think about that?
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> > =A0 And an anthropologist's shoes,
> > =A0 And every Saturday evening,
> > =A0 He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> > =A0 And some day, if I can,
> > =A0 I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> > =A0 Same as my old man.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiFVrtjUmz7c- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 19 Dec 2008 17:00:11
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

THE HATE MONGERS

<Couple racists weigh in. 'Course, neither of them are brave enough to
write their own names to their posts, [even brave at a distance], so
what you get is their usual stupid, ignorant, misanthropic and
gratuitously mean commentary, from 2 Americans following another;
Kingston's lead, to a man's obituary thread. > -- Phil Innes

Despite an obituary notice, the hate mongers are still here --
especially Mr. Dowd who forged my name on a university website. As
usual, his post contains no chess content about the Evans-Wade game.

Yours, Larry Parr

[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 12:38?pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 10:32?am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That's hardly a given. A person might come to the US from, say,
> > > Cornwall, spend decades here, and still be dumb as a stump.
> >
> > Or left America for Malaysia and serve as Larry Evans' ditto machine.
>
> Couple racists weigh in.
>
> 'Course, neither of them are brave enough to write their own names to
> their posts, [even brave at a distance], so what you get is their
> usual stupid, ignorant, misanthropic and gratuitously mean
> commentary, from 2 Americans following another; Kingston's lead, to a
> man's obituary thread.
>
> Abuse it seems can be as vague as you like - look at the Sloan!
>
> But the Head of State in the UK awarded Bob Wade an honour in respect
> of his work in chess.
>
> Let none of these vague, vile-speaking and inconsequential numbskulls
> second guess what it takes to achieve that.
>
> Phil Innes

Date: 19 Dec 2008 16:43:50
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 3:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 9:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> > =A0 Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding out=
,
> > compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> > =A0 Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything a=
t
> > all about US political discussion in 1949?
>
> Quite.
>
> > I may be going out on a
> > limb here,
>
> You mean you don't have any knowledge but still your usual strong
> opinions?
>
> > but these might have been possible sources:
>
> > =A0 Newspapers
> > =A0 Magazines
> > =A0 Books
>
> I think I mentioned that not even Dickens was in print in England -
> how American literature should appear is unknown - rationing of every
> type ended in 1953, and there were chronic shortages of staples,
> including paper, as well as money to pay for [then] expensive luxuries
> such as books.
>
> > =A0 Radio broadcasts
>
> I think I also already mentioned that this would be via BBC, that is,
> government controlled BBC - and a socialist government at that!
>
> > =A0 Newsreels
> > =A0 Television (to a limited extent)
>
> Laugh. Newsreels like what? What was on offer even in the USA at the
> time? And TV =A0;))) You are thinking rich man, not ordinary man and
> besides TV in the UK was just BBC, which again was at the mercy of
> whatever the government thought the people should know.
>
> > =A0 The Congressional Record
> > =A0 Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> > =A0 Word of mouth
>
> What fond ideas for what an Englishman should know. How would
> 'concerned citizens' know anything mlore about the Soviet Union as it
> actually was than the pre-war war in Spain - when English and US
> papers simple invented things?
>
> > =A0 Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personally
> > remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> > existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> > things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> > 1950s.
>
> You say you remember political revelations about the Soviet Union at
> the age of 3 or 5 years old?!
>
> > > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed to
> > > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > > anthropological one.
>
> > =A0 Wow, this is anthropology?
>
> Wow - Am I talking to a blond? Like, Yeah - anthropology is about the
> state of the people and what went on amongst them. Like, is that
> insane, dude?
>
> > =A0 My old man's an anthropologist,
> > =A0 What do you think about that?
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> > =A0 And an anthropologist's shoes,
> > =A0 And every Saturday evening,
> > =A0 He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> > =A0 And some day, if I can,
> > =A0 I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> > =A0 Same as my old man.
>
> Taylor Kingston weighs in, but floats away on a ditty.

Phil, you suffer from a chronic illusion that you somehow should be
taken seriously.

> Serious Soviet
> watchers did not. What escapes our Californian colleague, despite his
> early memories aged 5 about the SU =A0<ggg> =A0is the simple question of
> How We Know Anything. He has proposed that this is far over his head,
> and anthropology too.
>
> Vague bland statements and [real?] memories are enough for him, though
> he cannot say even how he formed hios own opinions, nevermind beggar
> Wade's obituary with his silly thoughts and unsweet nothings.
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiFVrtjUmz7c

Date: 19 Dec 2008 14:13:11
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 4:09=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 8:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> > =A0 Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding out=
,
> > compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> > =A0 Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything a=
t
> > all about US political discussion in 1949? I may be going out on a
> > limb here, but these might have been possible sources:
>
> > =A0 Newspapers
> > =A0 Magazines
> > =A0 Books
> > =A0 Radio broadcasts
> > =A0 Newsreels
> > =A0 Television (to a limited extent)
> > =A0 The Congressional Record
> > =A0 Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> > =A0 Word of mouth
>
> Just for fun,

Just? and fun? In a man's obit?

> I went to a database of old newspapers, and searched for
> Stalin starting with January 1, 1949.

American newspapers

> There were huge numbers of
> articles about the oppressiveness of the Soviet government.

'huge'

> One of the
> first pieces was a very interesting discussion of Sulzberger on the
> paradoxes of the Soviet system,

'paradoxes'?

> which included wonderment that there
> were westerners naive enough to believe that their hopes lay in
> following such a brutal dictatorship.

Which is not exactly to say what a Brit might have read at the time,
or suspected Uncle Sam's propaganda thereof... prefacing the age of
McCarthy and political hysterics in the US.

> I then went to 1930 and tried the same thing, and found many

'many'

> articles
> on Stalin's war against the Kulaks, shooting of priests, and general
> terror. One of the first was a careful discussion by Kerensky, in
> which he advocated having relations with the Soviet Union so the rest
> of the world could better expose the true ugliness of the system
> (which he described in some detail).

I rather wonder if this level of reporting was at all equivalent to
Blair's reports to Philip Rahv in the US during WWII?

> It took a great deal of willful disbelief in reportage of the time to
> think

A transcendent phrase... for whom to think given what information, and
what providence and authority thereof?

> in 1949 that the Soviet Union encouraged free political
> discussion. If you believe otherwise,

Another transcendent, to wit, if who believes?

> I encourage you to go to any
> library with access to newspapers of the time, and do your own search.

And there you will encounter [if you are an American] the conditions
upon which McCarthy rose to prominence, and who suceeded in dividing
American confidence in its own government - the hope of the free world
- for a decade.

No Soviet spy master could have hoped for better than McCarthy's
emergence and also his acceptance into the culture.

What is true is that after WWII every nation sought to identify itself
and feared [in the West] the particular form of government in the
Soviet Union. The results of that political entity spoke little truth,
no more than than was spoken in the West about the market capitalism,
which I hope the current writer notes, is currently 'socialized'.

The difference in the systems was not economic either - both spending
approx same amount of GNP on military, roads, schools, health - a
point heretofore avoided.

What was atrocious in the East was the spiritual subjugation of
mankind to Mammon as a policy. What has proved atrocious in the West
is the subjugation of mankind to Mammon as casual effect of 'market
forces'.

What Wade should have been expected to understand and prefer from
either dream is not here established.
What Wade did is to settle down in post-war England and do as much,
more, than did Staunton to establish the game among the people.

TO this effect he generated 20 GMs in the UK while US generated 10 -
and US had 5 times the population of the UK. As Fischer said... I
believe in pawns. The Head of State honored Wade for this - and such
honors are never naive, IMO.

If anyone can substantiate other than genuine devotion to people on
the part of Wade in his chess life, let them say so, not carp abstract
and vague about a man who can no longer answer his own mail.

That is your challenge, Spinrad. Not so abstract and general, and not
so Kingston, neither, which is on its face mean and mendaciously
ignorant.

I even suggest that all the people who have written such 'queries'
here have a bunch of explaining to do about their own motivation and
especially in light of what their own country did at the time.

Phil Innes

> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> > =A0 Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personally
> > remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> > existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> > things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> > 1950s.
>
> > > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed to
> > > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > > anthropological one.
>
> > =A0 Wow, this is anthropology?
>
> > =A0 My old man's an anthropologist,
> > =A0 What do you think about that?
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> > =A0 And an anthropologist's shoes,
> > =A0 And every Saturday evening,
> > =A0 He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> > =A0 And some day, if I can,
> > =A0 I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> > =A0 Same as my old man.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiFVrtjUmz7c

Date: 19 Dec 2008 13:27:59
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 3:25=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 3:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 9:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > =A0I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > > > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> > > =A0 Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding o=
ut,
> > > compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > > > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> > > =A0 Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything=
at
> > > all about US political discussion in 1949?
>
> > Quite.
>
> > > I may be going out on a
> > > limb here,
>
> > You mean you don't have any knowledge but still your usual strong
> > opinions?

no answer!

> > > but these might have been possible sources:
>
> > > =A0 Newspapers
> > > =A0 Magazines
> > > =A0 Books
>
> > I think I mentioned that not even Dickens was in print in England -
> > how American literature should appear is unknown - rationing of every
> > type ended in 1953, and there were chronic shortages of staples,
> > including paper, as well as money to pay for [then] expensive luxuries
> > such as books.
>
> > > =A0 Radio broadcasts
>
> > I think I also already mentioned that this would be via BBC, that is,
> > government controlled BBC - and a socialist government at that!
>
> > > =A0 Newsreels
> > > =A0 Television (to a limited extent)
>
> > Laugh. Newsreels like what? What was on offer even in the USA at the
> > time? And TV =A0;))) You are thinking rich man, not ordinary man and
> > besides TV in the UK was just BBC, which again was at the mercy of
> > whatever the government thought the people should know.
>
> =A0 And the government censored all reports about American politics?
> Rrriiight.

An answer - Taylor Kingston makes his usual debacle of a response by
indicating something not mentioned by anyone else, as if he were to
adequately summarize them, rather than make up their opinion from
whole cloth. What a clod of a bloke!

The US government suppressed Blair's book Animal Farm and also
Zamyatin's. RIght? Please tell us you understand that this happened
before further expostulation.

They did it not to annoy Stalin, during the war and after. Do you
understand that as a fact?

> > > =A0 The Congressional Record
> > > =A0 Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> > > =A0 Word of mouth
>
> > What fond ideas for what an Englishman should know.
>
> =A0 Oh, yes, that's right -- they built a wall around England to keep
> out all news of the outside world. Called it the Iron Curtain, didn't
> they?

What?

When I wrote of this before no less than GM Arnold Denker wrote to me
saying 'just so!' It was like that. And Arnold was there after the
war. What does that witness have to do with your polemic, Californian?
ANYTHING? I rather doubt it, since you continue to mock others but
cite nothing evidential yourself.

> > How would
> > 'concerned citizens' know anything mlore about the Soviet Union as it
> > actually was than the pre-war war in Spain - when English and US
> > papers simple invented things?
>
> > > =A0 Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personal=
ly
> > > remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> > > existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> > > things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> > > 1950s.
>
> > You say you remember political revelations about the Soviet Union at
> > the age of 3 or 5 years old?!
>
> =A0 Phil, your dyslexia is acting up again. Read what I actually say,
> and if you must comment, then comment on what I actually say, rather
> than on straw-man pronouncements you make up.

LOL - Kingston said 'early fifties and he was born in 1949.. so... he
doesn't argue the point - he suggests it is something other than what
he said.

Such a correspondent is a liar to pretend they indicated otherwise.

> > > > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed =
to
> > > > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > > > anthropological one.
>
> > > =A0 Wow, this is anthropology?
>
> > Wow - Am I talking to a blond? Like, Yeah - anthropology is about the
> > state of the people and what went on amongst them.
>
> =A0 In the context of the current discussion, this would be more in the
> realm of history and/or sociology, Phil. If you don't know the
> difference between sociology and anthropology,

What the **** is this now? I ask if there is ANY basis for Kingston's
comments on how people should know things, and he lectures me about
his suggestion that it is sociology not anthropology [which ain't
true] but is his way of escaping the issue of why he has such strong
and indeed offensive comments continuously appearing in an obit
thread.

> then get a degree in
> one or the other, like I did, or at least consult a dictionary.

You mean an undergraduate degree? OR do you mean to obfusticate the
issue with your trash - which you have done from the beginning here?

> > Like, is that
> > insane, dude?
>
> =A0 Oh, we often think that of you here, Phil.

You are cheap snioper, without the courage of his own, even
anonymous, convictions.

> > > =A0 My old man's an anthropologist,
> > > =A0 What do you think about that?
> > > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> > > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> > > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> > > =A0 And an anthropologist's shoes,
> > > =A0 And every Saturday evening,
> > > =A0 He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> > > =A0 And some day, if I can,
> > > =A0 I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> > > =A0 Same as my old man.
>
> > Taylor Kingston weighs in, but floats away on a ditty.
>
> =A0 Merely satirizing your misuse of the term anthropology

Diverting to some argument without offering your own definitions - and
SPECTACULARLY not answering the issue before you of your own evident
malice and general dumbth about what you write.

> > =A0Serious Soviet
> > watchers did not. What escapes our Californian colleague, despite his
> > early memories aged 5 about the SU =A0<ggg> =A0
>
> =A0 Tut, tut, you're fabricating again, Phil. See above comment for
> guidance.

You are a trivialist, and incapable of substantiating your own
opinion. Instead you get pissy in order to impress those who dig that
sort of thing.

You are a lightweight, Kingston - and so light you don't even know the
folly of playing with the heavy weights on any subject..

Why are you so insistent upon your own bent here? Why do you not say
so? You skipped it half a dozen times already, and its as if you
yourself were as political as the person you accuse of being so ;(

Phil Innes

Date: 19 Dec 2008 13:09:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 8:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> =A0 Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding out,
> compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> =A0 Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything at
> all about US political discussion in 1949? I may be going out on a
> limb here, but these might have been possible sources:
>
> =A0 Newspapers
> =A0 Magazines
> =A0 Books
> =A0 Radio broadcasts
> =A0 Newsreels
> =A0 Television (to a limited extent)
> =A0 The Congressional Record
> =A0 Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> =A0 Word of mouth

Just for fun, I went to a database of old newspapers, and searched for
Stalin starting with January 1, 1949. There were huge numbers of
articles about the oppressiveness of the Soviet government. One of the
first pieces was a very interesting discussion of Sulzberger on the
paradoxes of the Soviet system, which included wonderment that there
were westerners naive enough to believe that their hopes lay in
following such a brutal dictatorship.

I then went to 1930 and tried the same thing, and found many articles
on Stalin's war against the Kulaks, shooting of priests, and general
terror. One of the first was a careful discussion by Kerensky, in
which he advocated having relations with the Soviet Union so the rest
of the world could better expose the true ugliness of the system
(which he described in some detail).

It took a great deal of willful disbelief in reportage of the time to
think in 1949 that the Soviet Union encouraged free political
discussion. If you believe otherwise, I encourage you to go to any
library with access to newspapers of the time, and do your own search.

Jerry Spinrad
>
> =A0 Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personally
> remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> 1950s.
>
> > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed to
> > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > anthropological one.
>
> =A0 Wow, this is anthropology?
>
> =A0 My old man's an anthropologist,
> =A0 What do you think about that?
> =A0 He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> =A0 He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> =A0 He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> =A0 And an anthropologist's shoes,
> =A0 And every Saturday evening,
> =A0 He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> =A0 And some day, if I can,
> =A0 I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> =A0 Same as my old man.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiFVrtjUmz7c

Date: 19 Dec 2008 12:35:44
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 12:38=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 10:32=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > That's hardly a given. A person might come to the US from, say,
> > Cornwall, spend decades here, and still be dumb as a stump.
>
> Or left America for Malaysia and serve as Larry Evans' ditto machine.

Couple racists weigh in.

'Course, neither of them are brave enough to write their own names to
their posts, [even brave at a distance], so what you get is their
usual stupid, ignorant, misanthropic and gratuitously mean
commentary, from 2 Americans following another; Kingston's lead, to a
man's obituary thread.

Abuse it seems can be as vague as you like - look at the Sloan!

But the Head of State in the UK awarded Bob Wade an honour in respect
of his work in chess.

Let none of these vague, vile-speaking and inconsequential numbskulls
second guess what it takes to achieve that.

Phil Innes

Date: 19 Dec 2008 12:25:01
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 3:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 9:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> > =A0 Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding out=
,
> > compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> > =A0 Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything a=
t
> > all about US political discussion in 1949?
>
> Quite.
>
> > I may be going out on a
> > limb here,
>
> You mean you don't have any knowledge but still your usual strong
> opinions?
>
> > but these might have been possible sources:
>
> > =A0 Newspapers
> > =A0 Magazines
> > =A0 Books
>
> I think I mentioned that not even Dickens was in print in England -
> how American literature should appear is unknown - rationing of every
> type ended in 1953, and there were chronic shortages of staples,
> including paper, as well as money to pay for [then] expensive luxuries
> such as books.
>
> > =A0 Radio broadcasts
>
> I think I also already mentioned that this would be via BBC, that is,
> government controlled BBC - and a socialist government at that!
>
> > =A0 Newsreels
> > =A0 Television (to a limited extent)
>
> Laugh. Newsreels like what? What was on offer even in the USA at the
> time? And TV =A0;))) You are thinking rich man, not ordinary man and
> besides TV in the UK was just BBC, which again was at the mercy of
> whatever the government thought the people should know.

And the government censored all reports about American politics?
Rrriiight.

> > =A0 The Congressional Record
> > =A0 Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> > =A0 Word of mouth
>
> What fond ideas for what an Englishman should know.

Oh, yes, that's right -- they built a wall around England to keep
out all news of the outside world. Called it the Iron Curtain, didn't
they?

> How would
> 'concerned citizens' know anything mlore about the Soviet Union as it
> actually was than the pre-war war in Spain - when English and US
> papers simple invented things?
>
> > =A0 Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personally
> > remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> > existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> > things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> > 1950s.
>
> You say you remember political revelations about the Soviet Union at
> the age of 3 or 5 years old?!

Phil, your dyslexia is acting up again. Read what I actually say,
and if you must comment, then comment on what I actually say, rather
than on straw-man pronouncements you make up.

> > > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed to
> > > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > > anthropological one.
>
> > =A0 Wow, this is anthropology?
>
> Wow - Am I talking to a blond? Like, Yeah - anthropology is about the
> state of the people and what went on amongst them.

In the context of the current discussion, this would be more in the
realm of history and/or sociology, Phil. If you don't know the
difference between sociology and anthropology, then get a degree in
one or the other, like I did, or at least consult a dictionary.

> Like, is that
> insane, dude?

Oh, we often think that of you here, Phil.

> > =A0 My old man's an anthropologist,
> > =A0 What do you think about that?
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> > =A0 He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> > =A0 And an anthropologist's shoes,
> > =A0 And every Saturday evening,
> > =A0 He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> > =A0 And some day, if I can,
> > =A0 I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> > =A0 Same as my old man.
>
> Taylor Kingston weighs in, but floats away on a ditty.

Merely satirizing your misuse of the term anthropology

> Serious Soviet
> watchers did not. What escapes our Californian colleague, despite his
> early memories aged 5 about the SU =A0<ggg> =A0

Tut, tut, you're fabricating again, Phil. See above comment for
guidance.

Date: 19 Dec 2008 12:10:49
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 9:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> =A0 Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding out,
> compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> =A0 Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything at
> all about US political discussion in 1949?

Quite.

> I may be going out on a
> limb here,

You mean you don't have any knowledge but still your usual strong
opinions?

> but these might have been possible sources:
>
> =A0 Newspapers
> =A0 Magazines
> =A0 Books

I think I mentioned that not even Dickens was in print in England -
how American literature should appear is unknown - rationing of every
type ended in 1953, and there were chronic shortages of staples,
including paper, as well as money to pay for [then] expensive luxuries
such as books.

> =A0 Radio broadcasts

I think I also already mentioned that this would be via BBC, that is,
government controlled BBC - and a socialist government at that!

> =A0 Newsreels
> =A0 Television (to a limited extent)

Laugh. Newsreels like what? What was on offer even in the USA at the
time? And TV ;))) You are thinking rich man, not ordinary man and
besides TV in the UK was just BBC, which again was at the mercy of
whatever the government thought the people should know.

> =A0 The Congressional Record
> =A0 Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> =A0 Word of mouth

What fond ideas for what an Englishman should know. How would
'concerned citizens' know anything mlore about the Soviet Union as it
actually was than the pre-war war in Spain - when English and US
papers simple invented things?

> =A0 Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personally
> remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> 1950s.

You say you remember political revelations about the Soviet Union at
the age of 3 or 5 years old?!

> > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed to
> > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > anthropological one.
>
> =A0 Wow, this is anthropology?

Wow - Am I talking to a blond? Like, Yeah - anthropology is about the
state of the people and what went on amongst them. Like, is that
insane, dude?

> =A0 My old man's an anthropologist,
> =A0 What do you think about that?
> =A0 He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> =A0 He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> =A0 He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> =A0 And an anthropologist's shoes,
> =A0 And every Saturday evening,
> =A0 He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> =A0 And some day, if I can,
> =A0 I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> =A0 Same as my old man.

Taylor Kingston weighs in, but floats away on a ditty. Serious Soviet
watchers did not. What escapes our Californian colleague, despite his
early memories aged 5 about the SU <ggg > is the simple question of
How We Know Anything. He has proposed that this is far over his head,
and anthropology too.

Vague bland statements and [real?] memories are enough for him, though
he cannot say even how he formed hios own opinions, nevermind beggar
Wade's obituary with his silly thoughts and unsweet nothings.
Phil Innes

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiFVrtjUmz7c

Date: 20 Dec 2008 01:46:30
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

[email protected] wrote:
[1949:]
> I think I mentioned that not even Dickens was in print in England -

The search

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Charles+Dickens&yrh=1949&yrl=1949

shows plenty of copies published, let alone in print, in England
in 1949.

> how American literature should appear is unknown - rationing of every
> type ended in 1953, and there were chronic shortages of staples,
> including paper, as well as money to pay for [then] expensive luxuries
> such as books.

I possess dozens, perhaps hundreds, of books from 1949, and
certainly hundreds+ from the immediate post-war period [say, 1945-53].
These include children's books, both new and classics, from my own
formative years, a wide collection from my parents, and quite a lot
of second-hard textbooks and chess books from that era.

Penguin and Pelican books of the period were pretty cheap --
less than a pint of beer.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

Date: 19 Dec 2008 09:38:30
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 10:32=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:

> That's hardly a given. A person might come to the US from, say,
> Cornwall, spend decades here, and still be dumb as a stump.

Or left America for Malaysia and serve as Larry Evans' ditto machine.

Date: 19 Dec 2008 08:32:12
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 11:01=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> U.S. OPEN, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 1947
>
> Robert Wade must have known quite a bit about America because he
> played in the U.S. Open where he lost to a 15-year-old boy in a game
> that's hard to find.
>
> White: LARRY EVANS
> Black: ROBERT WADE
> King=92s Indian Defense, 1947
> 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.g3 0=960 5.Bg2 d6 6.e4 Nbd7 7.Nge2 e5 8.0=96=
0
> c6 9.d5 Ne8 10.Be3 c5 11.a3 Qe7 12.Qd3 f6 13.b4 b6 14.f3 Rf7 15.g4 Nf8
> 16.Ng3 Bd7 17.b5 Qd8 18.Rf2 Qc8 19.a4 a5 20.bxa6 Rxa6 21.Rfa2 Bh8
> 22.Nb5 f5 23.gxf5 gxf5 24.exf5 e4 25.Nxe4 Bxf5 26.Re1 Ng6 27.Qb3 Be5
> 28.Bf2 Nf4 29.Bg3 Ra5 30.Nexd6 Nxd6 31.Rxe5 Nxb5 32.axb5 Rxa2 33.Qxa2
> Nxg2 34.Kxg2 Bh3+ 35.Kf2 Qg4 36.Re8+ Kg7 37.Qb2+ Kh6 38.Qd2+ Kh5
> 39.Re5+ Rf5 40.Qf4 Qxf4 41.Bxf4 Kg6 42.Rxf5 Bxf5 43.Ke3 Kf7 44.Bc7 Ke7
> 45.Bxb6 Black Resigns

That's hardly a given. A person might come to the US from, say,
Cornwall, spend decades here, and still be dumb as a stump.

Date: 19 Dec 2008 08:01:51
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

U.S. OPEN, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 1947

Robert Wade must have known quite a bit about America because he
played in the U.S. Open where he lost to a 15-year-old boy in a game
that's hard to find.

White: LARRY EVANS
Black: ROBERT WADE
King=92s Indian Defense, 1947
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.g3 0=960 5.Bg2 d6 6.e4 Nbd7 7.Nge2 e5 8.0=960
c6 9.d5 Ne8 10.Be3 c5 11.a3 Qe7 12.Qd3 f6 13.b4 b6 14.f3 Rf7 15.g4 Nf8
16.Ng3 Bd7 17.b5 Qd8 18.Rf2 Qc8 19.a4 a5 20.bxa6 Rxa6 21.Rfa2 Bh8
22.Nb5 f5 23.gxf5 gxf5 24.exf5 e4 25.Nxe4 Bxf5 26.Re1 Ng6 27.Qb3 Be5
28.Bf2 Nf4 29.Bg3 Ra5 30.Nexd6 Nxd6 31.Rxe5 Nxb5 32.axb5 Rxa2 33.Qxa2
Nxg2 34.Kxg2 Bh3+ 35.Kf2 Qg4 36.Re8+ Kg7 37.Qb2+ Kh6 38.Qd2+ Kh5
39.Re5+ Rf5 40.Qf4 Qxf4 41.Bxf4 Kg6 42.Rxf5 Bxf5 43.Ke3 Kf7 44.Bc7 Ke7
45.Bxb6 Black Resigns

[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:32?am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> > Political discussion in 1949.
>
> Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding out,
> compared to Soviet political discussion.
>
> > The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,
>
> Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything at
> all about US political discussion in 1949? I may be going out on a
> limb here, but these might have been possible sources:
>
> Newspapers
> Magazines
> Books
> Radio broadcasts
> Newsreels
> Television (to a limited extent)
> The Congressional Record
> Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
> Word of mouth
>
> Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personally
> remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
> existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
> things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
> 1950s.
>
> > nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed to
> > know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> > anthropological one.
>
> Wow, this is anthropology?
>
> My old man's an anthropologist,
> What do you think about that?
> He wears an anthropologist's collar,
> He wears an anthropologist's hat.
> He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
> And an anthropologist's shoes,
> And every Saturday evening,
> He reads the Anthropologist News.
>
> And some day, if I can,
> I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
> Same as my old man.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiFVrtjUmz7c

Date: 19 Dec 2008 06:37:51
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 19, 7:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> I have no idea what Wade would know about US
> Political discussion in 1949.

Well, I think it's safe to say he'd have an easier time finding out,
compared to Soviet political discussion.

> The issue returns to how anyone should have known anything at all,

Wow, yeah, that's a toughie. How could anyone have known anything at
all about US political discussion in 1949? I may be going out on a
limb here, but these might have been possible sources:

Newspapers
Magazines
Books
Radio broadcasts
Newsreels
Television (to a limited extent)
The Congressional Record
Speeches by political figures and concerned citizens
Word of mouth

Mind you, I was but a new-born babe in 1949, so I do not personally
remember, or *_know_* by direct experience, if these things actually
existed in 1949. But it wasn't long until I did start remembering
things, and I do recall that they did exist no later than the early
1950s.

> nevermind 'know' things about Stalin's SU which others only seemed to
> know a decade latter. Its no idle question, and in fact a normal
> anthropological one.

Wow, this is anthropology?

My old man's an anthropologist,
What do you think about that?
He wears an anthropologist's collar,
He wears an anthropologist's hat.
He wears an anthropologist's raincoat,
And an anthropologist's shoes,
And every Saturday evening,
He reads the Anthropologist News.

And some day, if I can,
I'm gonna be an anthropologist,
Same as my old man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiFVrtjUmz7c

Date: 19 Dec 2008 04:32:28
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

Date: 17 Dec 2008 17:42:40
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 17, 5:01=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 My own approach is and has been to query
> the accusers as to their substantive evidence
> to back these reckless accusations; thus far,
> all have utterly failed to produce more than
> their patented guilty-by-accusation claptrap.

Good grief. Help-bot demanding "substantive evidence" is like Rush
Limbaugh calling his critics fat. Jerry, stop wasting time on this
troll.

Date: 17 Dec 2008 14:01:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 17, 12:32=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> I think our basic disagreement is about the meaning of Wade's
> statement; I think your reading of it is absurd, while you think my
> reading is absurd. I am fine with leaving the matter there.

Every time someone attempts to speculate as
to what I think, they somehow lose their way and
stray well off-course.

Far from thinking that the way in which Mr. Spin
-rad has "interpretted" BW's comments is absurd,
I believe his methods are *typical* of mediocre
minds, such as are ubiquitous in this day and age.
The only absurdity here would be to expect any-
thing else than mindless obedience to the dogma
of our political (and religious) paradigm.

> On the minor point of what views of Stalin were in 1949, I note that
> the book Nightmare in Red cites a poll that 83% of Americans believed
> that communist party members should have to register as such with the
> government. Clearly, views of the communist system were extremely
> negative if so many people would believe in such a restriction on
> political freedom. I am sure that the great majority of the remaining
> 17% viewed Stalin very negatively as well; I do not have any poll to
> back up this statement

I already pointed out the gamble BW took in not
naming names, but merely tossing out as fact that
Westerners had reported such-and-such.

Now we see that sweeping claims are being made
based on some poll or other, in some book. Was
this poll /scientific/? Would anyone dare admit
publicly if they happened to not hate commies? Is
it not true that many people will /say/ what they
believe their audience wants or expects to hear?

In reporting on what most people /think/, it is
unwise to assume that answers to such polls are
any true reflection. If you went to a church and
asked the people inside if they believed in God,
what sort of answers do you expect you might
get? Honest answers? And when the Spanish
Inquisition comes knocking at your door to
inquire about your "thoughts" on religion, how
will "most people" respond?

Supposing this were a cost-efficient telephone
survey, would it not be the case that what is
determined is what most telephone-answerers
say, not what most people actually think? I
don't know of any way to accurately determine
such things as what others /think/.

> but there are lots of statements from leftists

Left-Right-- a small part of the paradigm to which
I referred.

> of the time who opposed the right-wing extremism in the country while
> at the same time denouncing the Soviet Union.

Some of JS's comments have specifically
targetted Mr. Stalin while others have gone
with the Soviet Union, and one of my points
was that BW did not "say nice things about
Stalin", as he claimed. Perhaps this sort
of recklessness with the facts can unveil
just whose thinking is truly absurd.

The article at the link provided, I believe, by
Mr. Kingston, had a number of different folks
ranting about commies and such. It is very
possible that some of the confusion of the
commie-bashers here in rgc stems from
their taking every accusation made in those
rants as /automatically/ correct.

My own approach is and has been to query
the accusers as to their substantive evidence
to back these reckless accusations; thus far,
all have utterly failed to produce more than
their patented guilty-by-accusation claptrap.

-- help bot

Date: 16 Dec 2008 21:32:51
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

I think our basic disagreement is about the meaning of Wade's
statement; I think your reading of it is absurd, while you think my
reading is absurd. I am fine with leaving the matter there.

On the minor point of what views of Stalin were in 1949, I note that
the book Nightmare in Red cites a poll that 83% of Americans believed
that communist party members should have to register as such with the
government. Clearly, views of the communist system were extremely
negative if so many people would believe in such a restriction on
political freedom. I am sure that the great majority of the remaining
17% viewed Stalin very negatively as well; I do not have any poll to
back up this statement, but there are lots of statements from leftists
of the time who opposed the right-wing extremism in the country while
at the same time denouncing the Soviet Union.

Jerry Spinrad

On Dec 16, 6:35=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 16, 11:15 am, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Issue 1 of disagreement: We disagree on =A0Wade's statement that Wester=
n
> > visitors say poltical discussion and activity is encouraged in the
> > Soviet Union, though discussion is bounded by the general framework of
> > a communist state just as discussion in the US is bounded by the
> > constitution. To me, this is an indication of belief that the Soviet
> > Union under Stalin was a much freer country than it, in fact, was. To
> > you, it implies no such thing. I think we can say no more on that
> > issue; others can judge for themselves what Wade intended when he
> > wrote the statement.
>
> =A0 =A0And if their interpretation of BW's criticisms do
> not match up with popular political dogma, some
> folks will have a go at windmills of their own
> making.
>
> > Nobody objected to Wade's support of chess, so I do not think this is
> > an issue.
>
> =A0 =A0They certainly objected to his support of the
> Russian's successful promotion of chess; to
> his pointing out that those commies were more
> successful in chess than other countries.
>
> > The question is why he brought up the statements of these Westerners,
> > which is irrelevant to chess, unless he believed that they were
> > accurate statements about politics in the Soviet Union.
>
> =A0 =A0I think it is self-evident that BW brought them
> up because he believed they refuted the claim
> regarding chess being merely a tool to avert
> any discussion of politics in the USSR. =A0 As
> we already know, BW was poking holes in a
> commie-bashing piece he read in some chess
> rag.
>
> > > > even without the
> > > > ridiculous comparison to the United States, which was believed only=
by
> > > > a small misguided minority in 1949.
> > > =A0 You have a link to this poll of your's? =A0 (Or are
> > > you just making stuff up again?)
> > Is this a serious disagreement, or not?
>
> =A0 =A0It is only "serious" in regard to the potential
> damages to the ego. =A0 Did you have a poll of
> what people thought in 1949, or did you just
> cook this sweeping claim up, like a soufle'?
>
> =A0 Another recent example of "fancy cooking"
> was a fairly recent claim by Mr. Parr-Evans
> that "most top players believe" this or that;
> the poor chap had come across one or two
> critics of some FIDE action, and so he took
> a gamble and crafted his own imaginary poll,
> as has been his long-standing habit.
>
> > I think it was somewhat
> > obvious that there was a strong feeling that the Soviet regime was
> > odious, which led at times to extremes exploited by such as the
> > reprehensible House of Unamerican Activities Committee which used
> > people's fear of the Soviet system to suppress legitimate political
> > dissent. If it will convince you on the issue, I can probably find
> > some data here
>
> =A0 So then, you admit there was no such poll.
>
> > but I am not sure what would convince you
>
> =A0 Let's just stick to discussing BW and those
> who accused him of being in league with the
> commies. =A0 There is no point in worrying much
> about persuading me, as that is not the issue.
>
> > Why do you think they sang "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman
> > Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow?"
>
> =A0 I have no clue, but there are only so many
> different drugs, and what about those who
> enjoy music but who aren't into drugs? =A0In the
> business world, they call it "diversification", or
> perhaps, "broadening one's customer base".
>
> > It was because there
> > were small groups of people who were, in fact, carrying pictures of
> > Chairman Mao at every peace demonstration. Again, they were a small,
> > misguided, minority, but even a liberal like John Lennon felt it was
> > important to speak up against them. I contend that people who spoke
> > positively about Stalin in the 40s were quite similar to people who
> > spoke positively about Chairman Mao in the late 60s; a small minority
> > of misguided individuals, and it speaks poorly of their political
> > judgment, and deserved a certain amount of ridicule.
>
> =A0 So then, you are titlting at the windmill of
> BW being imagined by you to have spoken
> positively about Mr. Stalin. =A0 We are once
> again in agreement on the fundamentals.
>
> > A comment was madeto the effect that
> > Wade's comment may have seemed reasonable in 1949, but not later, and
> > wondered when he became disillusioned with the Soviet Union.
>
> =A0 Mr. Kingston failed to demonstrate that BW
> ever did become "disillusioned" in such a
> manner. =A0 In fact, as we now know, apart from
> one slip in 1972, Russians have dominated
> top-level chess right up until the invention of
> IBM's DeeperBlue and India's Anand. =A0 I see
> no reason to speculate on BW's purported
> disillusionment.
>
> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 16 Dec 2008 16:35:56
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 16, 11:15 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> Issue 1 of disagreement: We disagree on Wade's statement that Western
> visitors say poltical discussion and activity is encouraged in the
> Soviet Union, though discussion is bounded by the general framework of
> a communist state just as discussion in the US is bounded by the
> constitution. To me, this is an indication of belief that the Soviet
> Union under Stalin was a much freer country than it, in fact, was. To
> you, it implies no such thing. I think we can say no more on that
> issue; others can judge for themselves what Wade intended when he
> wrote the statement.

And if their interpretation of BW's criticisms do
not match up with popular political dogma, some
folks will have a go at windmills of their own
making.

> Nobody objected to Wade's support of chess, so I do not think this is
> an issue.

They certainly objected to his support of the
Russian's successful promotion of chess; to
his pointing out that those commies were more
successful in chess than other countries.

> The question is why he brought up the statements of these Westerners,
> which is irrelevant to chess, unless he believed that they were
> accurate statements about politics in the Soviet Union.

I think it is self-evident that BW brought them
up because he believed they refuted the claim
regarding chess being merely a tool to avert
any discussion of politics in the USSR. As
we already know, BW was poking holes in a
commie-bashing piece he read in some chess
rag.

> > > even without the
> > > ridiculous comparison to the United States, which was believed only by
> > > a small misguided minority in 1949.

> > You have a link to this poll of your's? (Or are
> > you just making stuff up again?)

> Is this a serious disagreement, or not?

It is only "serious" in regard to the potential
damages to the ego. Did you have a poll of
what people thought in 1949, or did you just
cook this sweeping claim up, like a soufle'?

Another recent example of "fancy cooking"
was a fairly recent claim by Mr. Parr-Evans
that "most top players believe" this or that;
the poor chap had come across one or two
critics of some FIDE action, and so he took
a gamble and crafted his own imaginary poll,
as has been his long-standing habit.

> I think it was somewhat
> obvious that there was a strong feeling that the Soviet regime was
> odious, which led at times to extremes exploited by such as the
> reprehensible House of Unamerican Activities Committee which used
> people's fear of the Soviet system to suppress legitimate political
> dissent. If it will convince you on the issue, I can probably find
> some data here

So then, you admit there was no such poll.

> but I am not sure what would convince you

Let's just stick to discussing BW and those
who accused him of being in league with the
commies. There is no point in worrying much
about persuading me, as that is not the issue.

> Why do you think they sang "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman
> Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow?"

I have no clue, but there are only so many
different drugs, and what about those who
enjoy music but who aren't into drugs? In the
business world, they call it "diversification", or
perhaps, "broadening one's customer base".

> It was because there
> were small groups of people who were, in fact, carrying pictures of
> Chairman Mao at every peace demonstration. Again, they were a small,
> misguided, minority, but even a liberal like John Lennon felt it was
> important to speak up against them. I contend that people who spoke
> positively about Stalin in the 40s were quite similar to people who
> spoke positively about Chairman Mao in the late 60s; a small minority
> of misguided individuals, and it speaks poorly of their political
> judgment, and deserved a certain amount of ridicule.

So then, you are titlting at the windmill of
BW being imagined by you to have spoken
positively about Mr. Stalin. We are once
again in agreement on the fundamentals.

> A comment was madeto the effect that
> Wade's comment may have seemed reasonable in 1949, but not later, and
> wondered when he became disillusioned with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Kingston failed to demonstrate that BW
ever did become "disillusioned" in such a
manner. In fact, as we now know, apart from
one slip in 1972, Russians have dominated
top-level chess right up until the invention of
IBM's DeeperBlue and India's Anand. I see
no reason to speculate on BW's purported
disillusionment.

-- help bot

Date: 16 Dec 2008 08:15:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 16, 2:32=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 16, 1:42=A0am, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Here is the full quote in question dealing with politics.
>
> > Kasso=92s statement =93Chess will divert them from politics=94 is too
> > sweeping. People, if they are hungry, would think in terms of their
> > stomach. Evidence of Western visitors to the Soviet Union is that
> > political discussion and activity is encouraged and exists, though
> > naturally discussion is bounded by the general framework of a
> > communist State just as discussion in the USA is bounded by their
> > constitution.
> > This strikes me as a pretty clear attempt to place the Soviet Union
> > and the USA on a roughly equal level in terms of freedom of political
> > expression.
>
> =A0 Well, it struck me as criticism of remarks which
> were so broad-sweeping as to reveal their nature
> as political dogma. =A0 I note that each time Mr. Spin
> -rad repeats his mantra, he neglects to recognize
> the fact that these remarks were /criticisms/-- not
> some lecture on politics, intended to promote the
> spread of Stalinism.

Issue 1 of disagreement: We disagree on Wade's statement that Western
visitors say poltical discussion and activity is encouraged in the
Soviet Union, though discussion is bounded by the general framework of
a communist state just as discussion in the US is bounded by the
constitution. To me, this is an indication of belief that the Soviet
Union under Stalin was a much freer country than it, in fact, was. To
you, it implies no such thing. I think we can say no more on that
issue; others can judge for themselves what Wade intended when he
wrote the statement.

>
> =A0 In fact, I believe the dogma revealed in Mr.
> Wade's commentary is basically the promotion
> of chess, and here I make no excuses-- BW
> was guilty as sin. =A0 He even went so far as to
> comment on how popular chess was in some
> places, relative to others. =A0 =A0As everyone is
> aware, chess is a terrible waste of intellect on
> a trivial game; thus, BW is deserving of our
> contempt in that respect.

Nobody objected to Wade's support of chess, so I do not think this is
an issue.

>
> > It is also, of course, an enormous overstatement of the
> > freedom of political expression in the Soviet Union
>
> =A0 Mr. Wade did not assess that; his comments
> limited themselves to what, he said, Westerners
> reported. =A0 Clearly, BW did not set himself up as
> some high authority on politics in the USSR. =A0 In
> addition, the names of these Westerners of
> whom he spoke were not given, so his comment
> was apparently based on a matter of public
> knowledge... or else a reckless gamble that no
> one would call him on it.

The question is why he brought up the statements of these Westerners,
which is irrelevant to chess, unless he believed that they were
accurate statements about politics in the Soviet Union.

>
> > even without the
> > ridiculous comparison to the United States, which was believed only by
> > a small misguided minority in 1949.
>
> =A0 You have a link to this poll of your's? =A0 (Or are
> you just making stuff up again?)

Is this a serious disagreement, or not? I think it was somewhat
obvious that there was a strong feeling that the Soviet regime was
odious, which led at times to extremes exploited by such as the
reprehensible House of Unamerican Activities Committee which used
people's fear of the Soviet system to suppress legitimate political
dissent. If it will convince you on the issue, I can probably find
some data here, but I am not sure what would convince you, since the
definition of a small minority is open to interpretation.

>
> > When I was young, some people had similar ridiculous ideas regarding
> > the cultural revolution in China.
>
> =A0 Perhaps you are talking about the Beatles?
> I recall seeing a bunch of teenagers lecturing
> the world in a song about the evil Chairman
> Mao. =A0 According to their, uh, vast experience,
> this guy was as important as drugs-- 'cause
> he warranted his own song. =A0 (Or maybe they
> just ran out of different drugs to sing about?)
>

Why do you think they sang "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman
Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow?" It was because there
were small groups of people who were, in fact, carrying pictures of
Chairman Mao at every peace demonstration. Again, they were a small,
misguided, minority, but even a liberal like John Lennon felt it was
important to speak up against them. I contend that people who spoke
positively about Stalin in the 40s were quite similar to people who
spoke positively about Chairman Mao in the late 60s; a small minority
of misguided individuals, and it speaks poorly of their political
judgment, and deserved a certain amount of ridicule.

> > I knew and liked some of the people
> > who praised that murderous campaign, but they were being foolish then
> > just as Wade was being foolish about Stalin.
>
> =A0 =A0So you say; but again, where's the beef?
> Where is there any evidence to support the
> idea that BW was doing anything other than
> poking holes in a commie-bashing piece?
> Why do the accusers always project their
> own issues regarding Stalinism onto BW?
> I think we know the answers.

I have no particular issue here. A comment was madeto the effect that
Wade's comment may have seemed reasonable in 1949, but not later, and
wondered when he became disillusioned with the Soviet Union. I
responded that the comment was already far outside the mainstream in
1949; any additions to that have been because my statement, which I
still feel is completely unobjectionable, was challenged in ways that
made me feel the need to expand on it. I actually do not like the idea
of general politcal discussion on rgcm, but it seems slightly relevant
here because it is related to an interesting statement by a chess
player, which some of us feel is a noteworthy political statement
while others do not.

Jerry Spinrad
>
> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 16 Dec 2008 00:32:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 16, 1:42=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> Here is the full quote in question dealing with politics.
>
> Kasso=92s statement =93Chess will divert them from politics=94 is too
> sweeping. People, if they are hungry, would think in terms of their
> stomach. Evidence of Western visitors to the Soviet Union is that
> political discussion and activity is encouraged and exists, though
> naturally discussion is bounded by the general framework of a
> communist State just as discussion in the USA is bounded by their
> constitution.

> This strikes me as a pretty clear attempt to place the Soviet Union
> and the USA on a roughly equal level in terms of freedom of political
> expression.

Well, it struck me as criticism of remarks which
were so broad-sweeping as to reveal their nature
as political dogma. I note that each time Mr. Spin
-rad repeats his mantra, he neglects to recognize
the fact that these remarks were /criticisms/-- not
some lecture on politics, intended to promote the
spread of Stalinism.

In fact, I believe the dogma revealed in Mr.
Wade's commentary is basically the promotion
of chess, and here I make no excuses-- BW
was guilty as sin. He even went so far as to
comment on how popular chess was in some
places, relative to others. As everyone is
aware, chess is a terrible waste of intellect on
a trivial game; thus, BW is deserving of our
contempt in that respect.

> It is also, of course, an enormous overstatement of the
> freedom of political expression in the Soviet Union

Mr. Wade did not assess that; his comments
limited themselves to what, he said, Westerners
reported. Clearly, BW did not set himself up as
some high authority on politics in the USSR. In
addition, the names of these Westerners of
whom he spoke were not given, so his comment
was apparently based on a matter of public
knowledge... or else a reckless gamble that no
one would call him on it.

> even without the
> ridiculous comparison to the United States, which was believed only by
> a small misguided minority in 1949.

You have a link to this poll of your's? (Or are
you just making stuff up again?)

> When I was young, some people had similar ridiculous ideas regarding
> the cultural revolution in China.

Perhaps you are talking about the Beatles?
I recall seeing a bunch of teenagers lecturing
the world in a song about the evil Chairman
Mao. According to their, uh, vast experience,
this guy was as important as drugs-- 'cause
he warranted his own song. (Or maybe they
just ran out of different drugs to sing about?)

> I knew and liked some of the people
> who praised that murderous campaign, but they were being foolish then
> just as Wade was being foolish about Stalin.

So you say; but again, where's the beef?
Where is there any evidence to support the
idea that BW was doing anything other than
poking holes in a commie-bashing piece?
Why do the accusers always project their
own issues regarding Stalinism onto BW?
I think we know the answers.

-- help bot

Date: 15 Dec 2008 22:42:12
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 15, 9:41=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:43=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Silly me! I thought the question was about Bob Wade's statement which
> > seemed to say that Russian political discussion in 1949 was about as
> > free as political discussion in the US at the same time
>
=A0 You are silly, indeed. =A0 Mr. Wade made no such
statement of equivalency. =A0 Perhaps a course in
reading comprehension would help?

Here is the full quote in question dealing with politics.

Kasso=92s statement =93Chess will divert them from politics=94 is too
sweeping. People, if they are hungry, would think in terms of their
stomach. Evidence of Western visitors to the Soviet Union is that
political discussion and activity is encouraged and exists, though
naturally discussion is bounded by the general framework of a
communist State just as discussion in the USA is bounded by their
constitution.

This strikes me as a pretty clear attempt to place the Soviet Union
and the USA on a roughly equal level in terms of freedom of political
expression. It is also, of course, an enormous overstatement of the
freedom of political expression in the Soviet Union, even without the
ridiculous comparison to the United States, which was believed only by
a small misguided minority in 1949.

When I was young, some people had similar ridiculous ideas regarding
the cultural revolution in China. I knew and liked some of the people
who praised that murderous campaign, but they were being foolish then
just as Wade was being foolish about Stalin.

Jerry Spinrad

>
> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 15 Dec 2008 19:41:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

Date: 15 Dec 2008 08:14:47
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 15, 10:01=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> =A0 Translation: Phil doesn't know.

And this surprises you how?

Date: 15 Dec 2008 07:01:06
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 15, 8:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 8:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > In is interesting that Dr. Spinrad says that by 49 people knew about
> > > Stalinism. In fact Blair was arrested in WWII by British police/
> > > security for possessing a copy of Zamyatin's 'We' [an inspiration for
> > > 1984, BTW] and his publisher had to call the cops off by saying [lyin=
g
> > > actually] that he was required to have the title in order to review
> > > it.
>
> > > So - information on totalitarian systems was repressed in the West fo=
r
> > > readers in the East and in the West.
>
> > =A0 Hmmm, so Phil says no one in the West knew much about Soviet
>
> O! No! Its Otto!
> The usual inept careless paraphrase. I said there was repression of
> information iof the SU in the West. Our Taylor now makes that an
> abolute statement, or rather, whatever that "no one ... much"
> formation discloses.
>
> > society, and the harshness of Stalin's rule, in 1949? That would make
> > these passages from Orwell's "1984" rather hard to explain"
>
> To whom? You contest via inept paraphrase with one extract, as if you
> deny the specific I wrote above on Blair's arrest, and the bit
> excised, which was that it was the Americans who seized Animal Farm.
> The idea is very simple - the Allies did not want to annoy Stalin, not
> during the world war, nor after.
>
> To return to Jerry Spinrad's earlier point - he thought that people in
> the West should not be confused by Stalin's estate in 1949, but he
> doesn't mention the means by which they were informed of it. It is
> merely a fair question to ask how that would be achieved, and what
> sorts of people might have any sort of knowledge about conditions
> outside the show-places in the SU.
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0 "[I]n the twentieth century, there were the totalitarians, as they
> > were called. There were the German Nazis and the Russian communists.
> > The Russians persecuted heresy more cruelly than the Inquisition had
> > done ... They wore [heretics] down by torture and solitude until they
> > were despicable, cringing wretches, confessing whatever was put in
> > their mouths ... The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake ...
> > The German Nazis and Russian Communists came very close to us in their
> > methods ..."
>
> > =A0 One should keep in mind that "1984" was first published in 1949.
>
> > > The real distinctions attempted to be made in this threads are (a) ho=
w
> > > we know what we know [especially what Wade knew] and (b) the
> > > difference between communism and socialism.
>
> > =A0 Those are not at all the questions I asked. We know what Wade
> > thought in 1949, expressed in his own words in the pages of the
> > British Chess Magazine (seehttp://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/pac=
hman.html).
> > How he came to hold those naively pro-Soviet opinions, "how he knew
> > what he knew," or thought he knew, does not interest me at the
> > moment.
>
> I have read those comments. But at least one other person here has
> challenged 'what Wade thought' or rather, Taylor Kingston's
> understanding of what he said. Just as in your paraphrase above, there
> is nothing in Wade's statements to warrant such a singular
> understanding as you propose of him.
>
> But you misunderstand a third thing - the How We Know What We Know -
> comment is about you! - Not Wade. It is a normal way to differentiate
> between opinion, guesses, speculations, and so on, with other
> material. Its the way that we understand the filter of the
> commentator.
>
> Whether this interests you or not, it interests everyone else, since
> everyone has a necessarily partial view of a subject, and only naive
> people think there is no filtering of information both to you, and
> from you. In fact, the condition is unavoidable. To not be interested
> in the means of knowledge relegates your opinion to mere belief, and
> wish-fulfillment, and you wind up with fusion in a test tube.
>
> > =A0 We do clearly know that what he believed about the USSR was grossly
> > inaccurate.
>
> That is not a clear statement of anything. Are you intending to convey
> that /he/ thought it was inaccurate? Or that subsequently others found
> it to be inaccurate?
>
> What 'we' understood about ourselves is that we gave great liberty to
> McCarthy to pursue the "100 commies" in government, no?
>
> In other words, we didn't even understand our own government and
> proceeded to believe something which turned out to be 100% untrue!
>
> This is why being conscious if the filter of information is vital.
>
> > What does interest me, what I want to know, is how Wade
> > handled disillusionment when the facts about the USSR became
> > inescapable,
>
> But why does Taylor Kingston want to know that? I mean, what will
> happen if he receives information about it? One might as well ask if
> people were dissillusioned when the facts about the 100 commies in
> government was admitted to be inescapably false.
>
> One reason that Russians in chess are more than a little reticent to
> share what went on in their system is that they perceive that the West
> justifies that in order to promote their own political philosophies.
>
> This is of course both true, and simultaneously a dishonest practice.
>
> If Western politics was /also/ afflicted by a series of ills, the same
> or different ones, isn't that also significant to the political
> equation. After 35 years of telling other governments not to meddle
> with their markets, the US government now faces nationalising
> [Socialism!] insurance, banking, and auto industry.
>
> > whenever he may have learned them, whether it was 1949,
> > 1984, or whenever. So far no who has responded seems to know,
> > including (or especially) Innes.
>
> Mr. Taylor Kingston does not even understand the simplest implications
> of his own demands, even though he has received answers, he does not
> recognise them as such, since other countries and their interesting
> systems seem all of a muchness to him - and implicit in his question
> is the somehow absent elephant in the room of his own set of filters,
> politics, philosophy and so on. But mr. Taylor Kingston continuously
> denies the process of investigation, of How We Know... etc, as if he
> were immune from it.
>
> He might read a bit deeper [or even a bit].
>
> As far as what manner of dialog could and could not be obtained in the
> SU, and what the consequence, he might try Yevgeny Zamyatin's "A
> Soviet Heretic," and he and Dr. Spinrad might note that this
> substantial body of work became known in the West, courtesy /Litsa/
> published 1955 by the Chekhov Publishing House in New York. These were
> mostly criticisms of the arts, especially the written arts, and at a
> time when such material was at least possible to publish in the SU.
>
> Consider if you will, the conditions after WWII when conditions were
> considerably tighter there, and especially the difficulties of
> obtaining material that could be published in the West that was not
> merely political and polemical, but was some sort of verifyable record
> of less avowable Soviet goings-on.
>
> In fact, it was not until Solzenhytsen that we really 'got the big
> picture' of systemic cruelty on some vast level. And that, gentlemen,
> was not in 1949. Should you wish to verify these facts, you might
> assess Blair's late letters and which publishers in UK or US would
> actually report his views.
>
> Then tell me about 'shoulds' in the case of Wade or anyone else.

Translation: Phil doesn't know.

Date: 15 Dec 2008 05:10:12
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 14, 2:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 14, 8:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > In is interesting that Dr. Spinrad says that by 49 people knew about
> > Stalinism. In fact Blair was arrested in WWII by British police/
> > security for possessing a copy of Zamyatin's 'We' [an inspiration for
> > 1984, BTW] and his publisher had to call the cops off by saying [lying
> > actually] that he was required to have the title in order to review
> > it.
>
> > So - information on totalitarian systems was repressed in the West for
> > readers in the East and in the West.
>
> =A0 Hmmm, so Phil says no one in the West knew much about Soviet

O! No! Its Otto!
The usual inept careless paraphrase. I said there was repression of
information iof the SU in the West. Our Taylor now makes that an
abolute statement, or rather, whatever that "no one ... much"
formation discloses.

> society, and the harshness of Stalin's rule, in 1949? That would make
> these passages from Orwell's "1984" rather hard to explain"

To whom? You contest via inept paraphrase with one extract, as if you
deny the specific I wrote above on Blair's arrest, and the bit
excised, which was that it was the Americans who seized Animal Farm.
The idea is very simple - the Allies did not want to annoy Stalin, not
during the world war, nor after.

To return to Jerry Spinrad's earlier point - he thought that people in
the West should not be confused by Stalin's estate in 1949, but he
doesn't mention the means by which they were informed of it. It is
merely a fair question to ask how that would be achieved, and what
sorts of people might have any sort of knowledge about conditions
outside the show-places in the SU.

> =A0 "[I]n the twentieth century, there were the totalitarians, as they
> were called. There were the German Nazis and the Russian communists.
> The Russians persecuted heresy more cruelly than the Inquisition had
> done ... They wore [heretics] down by torture and solitude until they
> were despicable, cringing wretches, confessing whatever was put in
> their mouths ... The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake ...
> The German Nazis and Russian Communists came very close to us in their
> methods ..."
>
> =A0 One should keep in mind that "1984" was first published in 1949.
>
> > The real distinctions attempted to be made in this threads are (a) how
> > we know what we know [especially what Wade knew] and (b) the
> > difference between communism and socialism.
>
> =A0 Those are not at all the questions I asked. We know what Wade
> thought in 1949, expressed in his own words in the pages of the
> British Chess Magazine (seehttp://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/pachm=
an.html).
> How he came to hold those naively pro-Soviet opinions, "how he knew
> what he knew," or thought he knew, does not interest me at the
> moment.

I have read those comments. But at least one other person here has
challenged 'what Wade thought' or rather, Taylor Kingston's
understanding of what he said. Just as in your paraphrase above, there
is nothing in Wade's statements to warrant such a singular
understanding as you propose of him.

But you misunderstand a third thing - the How We Know What We Know -
comment is about you! - Not Wade. It is a normal way to differentiate
between opinion, guesses, speculations, and so on, with other
material. Its the way that we understand the filter of the
commentator.

Whether this interests you or not, it interests everyone else, since
everyone has a necessarily partial view of a subject, and only naive
people think there is no filtering of information both to you, and
from you. In fact, the condition is unavoidable. To not be interested
in the means of knowledge relegates your opinion to mere belief, and
wish-fulfillment, and you wind up with fusion in a test tube.

> =A0 We do clearly know that what he believed about the USSR was grossly
> inaccurate.

That is not a clear statement of anything. Are you intending to convey
that /he/ thought it was inaccurate? Or that subsequently others found
it to be inaccurate?

What 'we' understood about ourselves is that we gave great liberty to
McCarthy to pursue the "100 commies" in government, no?

In other words, we didn't even understand our own government and
proceeded to believe something which turned out to be 100% untrue!

This is why being conscious if the filter of information is vital.

> What does interest me, what I want to know, is how Wade
> handled disillusionment when the facts about the USSR became
> inescapable,

But why does Taylor Kingston want to know that? I mean, what will
happen if he receives information about it? One might as well ask if
people were dissillusioned when the facts about the 100 commies in
government was admitted to be inescapably false.

One reason that Russians in chess are more than a little reticent to
share what went on in their system is that they perceive that the West
justifies that in order to promote their own political philosophies.

This is of course both true, and simultaneously a dishonest practice.

If Western politics was /also/ afflicted by a series of ills, the same
or different ones, isn't that also significant to the political
equation. After 35 years of telling other governments not to meddle
with their markets, the US government now faces nationalising
[Socialism!] insurance, banking, and auto industry.

> whenever he may have learned them, whether it was 1949,
> 1984, or whenever. So far no who has responded seems to know,
> including (or especially) Innes.

Mr. Taylor Kingston does not even understand the simplest implications
of his own demands, even though he has received answers, he does not
recognise them as such, since other countries and their interesting
systems seem all of a muchness to him - and implicit in his question
is the somehow absent elephant in the room of his own set of filters,
politics, philosophy and so on. But mr. Taylor Kingston continuously
denies the process of investigation, of How We Know... etc, as if he
were immune from it.

He might read a bit deeper [or even a bit].

As far as what manner of dialog could and could not be obtained in the
SU, and what the consequence, he might try Yevgeny Zamyatin's "A
Soviet Heretic," and he and Dr. Spinrad might note that this
substantial body of work became known in the West, courtesy /Litsa/
published 1955 by the Chekhov Publishing House in New York. These were
mostly criticisms of the arts, especially the written arts, and at a
time when such material was at least possible to publish in the SU.

Consider if you will, the conditions after WWII when conditions were
considerably tighter there, and especially the difficulties of
obtaining material that could be published in the West that was not
merely political and polemical, but was some sort of verifyable record
of less avowable Soviet goings-on.

In fact, it was not until Solzenhytsen that we really 'got the big
picture' of systemic cruelty on some vast level. And that, gentlemen,
was not in 1949. Should you wish to verify these facts, you might
assess Blair's late letters and which publishers in UK or US would
actually report his views.

Then tell me about 'shoulds' in the case of Wade or anyone else.

Phil Innes

Date: 14 Dec 2008 11:05:54
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 14, 8:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> In is interesting that Dr. Spinrad says that by 49 people knew about
> Stalinism. In fact Blair was arrested in WWII by British police/
> security for possessing a copy of Zamyatin's 'We' [an inspiration for
> 1984, BTW] and his publisher had to call the cops off by saying [lying
> actually] that he was required to have the title in order to review
> it.
>
> So - information on totalitarian systems was repressed in the West for
> readers in the East and in the West.

Hmmm, so Phil says no one in the West knew much about Soviet
society, and the harshness of Stalin's rule, in 1949? That would make
these passages from Orwell's "1984" rather hard to explain"

"[I]n the twentieth century, there were the totalitarians, as they
were called. There were the German Nazis and the Russian communists.
The Russians persecuted heresy more cruelly than the Inquisition had
done ... They wore [heretics] down by torture and solitude until they
were despicable, cringing wretches, confessing whatever was put in
their mouths ... The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake ...
The German Nazis and Russian Communists came very close to us in their
methods ..."

One should keep in mind that "1984" was first published in 1949.

> The real distinctions attempted to be made in this threads are (a) how
> we know what we know [especially what Wade knew] and (b) the
> difference between communism and socialism.

Those are not at all the questions I asked. We know what Wade
thought in 1949, expressed in his own words in the pages of the
British Chess Magazine (see http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/pachma=
n.html).
How he came to hold those naively pro-Soviet opinions, "how he knew
what he knew," or thought he knew, does not interest me at the
moment.
We do clearly know that what he believed about the USSR was grossly
inaccurate. What does interest me, what I want to know, is how Wade
handled disillusionment when the facts about the USSR became
inescapable, whenever he may have learned them, whether it was 1949,
1984, or whenever. So far no who has responded seems to know,
including (or especially) Innes.

Date: 14 Dec 2008 09:40:54
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 14, 8:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> I remember that it was the early 60's before any of us working class
> people even saw a book at home.

That explains a lot about you.

Date: 14 Dec 2008 05:21:46
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 13, 9:43=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Silly me! I thought the question was about Bob Wade's statement which
> seemed to say that Russian political discussion in 1949 was about as
> free as political discussion in the US at the same time, rather than
> an opportunity for me to lend my powerful voice in support of freedom
> of expression worldwide.

This is the era of the publication of 1984 about totalitarian systems.
I wonder if its well known who blocked the book from distribution to
the Soviet Bloc?

Eventually, Arthur Koestler assured Eric Blair that some Ukrainian
editions got through, because they were distributed directly to
displaced Ukrainians - but a couple thousand copies were seized.

In is interesting that Dr. Spinrad says that by 49 people knew about
Stalinism. In fact Blair was arrested in WWII by British police/
security for possessing a copy of Zamyatin's 'We' [an inspiration for
1984, BTW] and his publisher had to call the cops off by saying [lying
actually] that he was required to have the title in order to review
it.

So - information on totalitarian systems was repressed in the West for
readers in the East and in the West.

As to the general state of the Western democracies in 1949, I think
there are significant clues that (a) in the year of birth, 1953
rationing still existed. (b) In 1946 the British people's ration was /
less / than it was in war time. (c) paper was rationed, and naturally,
very expensive.

There were a few books, but if you can't afford bread, you won't be
reading them! As another philospher [Krnisnamurti] noted, 'to a
starving man, bread is reality.'

I remember that it was the early 60's before any of us working class
people even saw a book at home. I think the prinicple form of
information sharing in Britain before that time was the radio - which
meant the government controlled BBC. In terms of control, it was
liberal, still and yet!

[an aside is to read Blair on his own propaganda activities to India
during WWII on behalf of the BBC, what was true, what not, and the
likely effects...]

Therefore we have a grand collation of features of which only some
people knew aught. Secondly, it is a non-sence to compare 'Stalinism'
with communism. Soviet citizens might as well have suffered the
attention of Fascist Mussolini as their leader, the only perceptable
differences might be a slightly better cut of uniform.

A few weeks ago I asked anyone if they knew the GDP of Russia, UK, US
in respect of %age spending on Military, Roads, Schools, Health etc.
No one admitted doing so, and the interesting thing is that if
presented with these stats no one would be able to do so - since they
are O! so similar. Since spending on these categories represent the
majority of all spending, and since they are collectivised, then such
spending is 'socialist'.

Thereby, predominant economic factors do not of themselves determine
political orientation. Neither do the percentages vary to great degree
whether you have a dictatorship, social democracy, or a US-style
market economy.

The real distinctions attempted to be made in this threads are (a) how
we know what we know [especially what Wade knew] and (b) the
difference between communism and socialism.

At the time, writing distinguishing the Soviet form of communism was
rare indeed, in fact unless one had read and understood Homage to
Catalonia where UK and US press ignored real battles that were taking
place, and even made up encounters which never happened - will you
understand that this conspiracy on both left and right not to tell the
truth to citizens ever existed - and existed in the 'free' world of
the Western democracies. Indeed, it continued in the US right through
the McCarthy period, and in the UK up to [and including] the time of
Prime Minister Harold Wilson.

That is the social context of the conversation.

Russian friends from Petersburg remark, wryly, that one explanation
for the large percentage of chess-playing 'Soviets' is that it was a
form of expression they couldn't get you for. Meanwhile in the West,
as I think I wrote before, publishing samizdat was very difficult,
according to Ray Keene, even at the time of the Refuseniks, and such
as Boris Gulko's treatment.

Phil Innes

Date: 14 Dec 2008 11:53:11
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 05:21:46 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>This is the era of the publication of 1984 about totalitarian systems.
>I wonder if its well known who blocked the book from distribution to
>the Soviet Bloc?

>Eventually, Arthur Koestler assured Eric Blair that some Ukrainian
>editions got through, because they were distributed directly to
>displaced Ukrainians - but a couple thousand copies were seized.

>In is interesting that Dr. Spinrad says that by 49 people knew about
>Stalinism. In fact Blair was arrested in WWII by British police/
>security for possessing a copy of Zamyatin's 'We' [an inspiration for
>1984, BTW] and his publisher had to call the cops off by saying [lying
>actually] that he was required to have the title in order to review
>it.

>So - information on totalitarian systems was repressed in the West for
>readers in the East and in the West.

Jeez, Phil, you mention Koestler above but only in relation to
distribution of "1984"? "Darkness at Noon" was published in 1940. So
Spinrad's reference to 1949 is conservative.

>Secondly, it is a non-sence to compare 'Stalinism'
>with communism. Soviet citizens might as well have suffered the
>attention of Fascist Mussolini as their leader, the only perceptable
>differences might be a slightly better cut of uniform.

Bad as Mussolini was, he didn't remotely compare to Stalin, if only
because he was much less competent.

Date: 13 Dec 2008 18:43:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

Silly me! I thought the question was about Bob Wade's statement which
seemed to say that Russian political discussion in 1949 was about as
free as political discussion in the US at the same time, rather than
an opportunity for me to lend my powerful voice in support of freedom
of expression worldwide.

On Dec 13, 4:16=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 13, 12:39=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > > It is always hard to tell when help-bot is being serious as opposed t=
o
> > > tongue-in-cheek; do we really need an argument that Stalin's Russia
> > > was enormously more repressive than any western democracy?
>
> =A0 This reminds me of an old joke. =A0 A woman is
> asked if, hypothetically speaking, she would
> have sex with someone for ten dollars. =A0She
> gets very insulted, replying "of course not".
> Then she is asked if she would have sex with a
> man for ten million dollars, and she replies, yes.
> You can probably guess what happens next--
> the man asks if she will have sex with him for
> one hundred dollars, and she again gets very
> insulted, saying "what kind of girl do you think I
> am?" =A0 The man replies, "we've already
> established that; now, we are just haggling
> over the price".
>
> =A0 =A0The comment about which regime is the
> more repressive seems to accurately reflect
> the gist of that old joke. =A0 Instead of rejecting
> government repression outright, Mr.Spinrad
> turns his rather meager intellect toward the
> idea of justifying Western-style repression
> by pointing to its significantly smaller size.
>
=A0 My view is that both have repression, and
that repression cannot be "justified" by
pointing to some greater repression. =A0OTOH,
I also believe that if one is forced to choose,one should always go
after the greater, not
the lesser of two weevils.
>
> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 13 Dec 2008 14:16:50
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 13, 12:39=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:

> > It is always hard to tell when help-bot is being serious as opposed to
> > tongue-in-cheek; do we really need an argument that Stalin's Russia
> > was enormously more repressive than any western democracy?

This reminds me of an old joke. A woman is
asked if, hypothetically speaking, she would
have sex with someone for ten dollars. She
gets very insulted, replying "of course not".
Then she is asked if she would have sex with a
man for ten million dollars, and she replies, yes.
You can probably guess what happens next--
the man asks if she will have sex with him for
one hundred dollars, and she again gets very
insulted, saying "what kind of girl do you think I
am?" The man replies, "we've already
established that; now, we are just haggling
over the price".

The comment about which regime is the
more repressive seems to accurately reflect
the gist of that old joke. Instead of rejecting
government repression outright, Mr. Spinrad
turns his rather meager intellect toward the
idea of justifying Western-style repression
by pointing to its significantly smaller size.

My view is that both have repression, and
that repression cannot be "justified" by
pointing to some greater repression. OTOH,
I also believe that if one is forced to choose,
one should always go after the greater, not
the lesser of two weevils.

-- help bot

Date: 13 Dec 2008 09:39:13
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 13, 12:02=A0pm, "[email protected]"
> It is always hard to tell when help-bot is being serious as opposed to
> tongue-in-cheek; do we really need an argument that Stalin's Russia
> was enormously more repressive than any western democracy?
>
> Jerry Spinrad

I think he's baiting Larry Parr, and got you sucked into a squabble as
a bonus, Jerry.

Date: 13 Dec 2008 09:02:44
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 13, 12:54=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 13, 12:49=A0am, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Critiques of commie-bashing are fine; defenses of Stalinism are
> > deserving of ridicule. Let us look at the whole statement on political
> > discussion in the Soviet Union whichWademakes.
>
> > "Evidence of Western visitors to the Soviet Union is that political
> > discussion and activity is encouraged and exists, though naturally
> > discussion is bounded by the general framework of a communist State
> > just as discussion in the USA is bounded by their constitution."
>
This statement seems to me to buy into the notion, believed by only a
few people by 1949, that there is a rough equivalence between freedom
of political discussion in the Soviet Union under Stalin and freedom
of political discussion in a Western democracy. I belive that we can
all agree (in 2008) that this is absurd, and deserves ridicule.
>
=A0 You are sadly mistaken; we do not agree on
that point at all.

Perhaps you are ignorant of Stalin's legacy, where you would be jailed
or worse if the government knew of any criticism of communism or
Stalin, and huge number of Russians were sent to the gulags? I
attended a minor candidate's forum during the last election, and any
number of extreme criticisms of the United States policy were uttered
by people who had no fear of trying to make their views known to as
many people as they could. Do you think this would be possible in the
Soviet Union? I knew people who were communists of various factions
when I was in college (some of these felt it was an insult to call the
Soviet Union communist, which explains my disclaimer in the earlier
post), and the Socialism and Liberation candidate at the forum could
easily be classed as a communist; the secret police in this country
seemed to be much less efficient than those of the former Soviet Union
at rounding up these dissidents.

As for Bob Wade's statements on what Western visitors said, there were
Western visitors who came back from the Soviet Union and said
wonderful things about it; there was plenty of evidence that such
people were naive dupes trotted around to model farms and other
showplaces.

It is always hard to tell when help-bot is being serious as opposed to
tongue-in-cheek; do we really need an argument that Stalin's Russia
was enormously more repressive than any western democracy?

Jerry Spinrad
>
> =A0 As I have pointed out here in rgc several
> times, the current state of affairs is such that
> most American writers are hamstrung by the
> political and religious dogma of our times.
>
> =A0 One of many points I've made was that these
> pundits try to have everything both ways-- they
> will write about all "good" as emanating from
> capitalism/western values, and all evils as
> emerging by-rote from the hated communism
> monster. =A0 These talking heads simply cannot
> help themselves. =A0The state is not forcing this
> upon them, as commie-bashers will insist
> happens over there, but the effect is much
> the same-- "dogmatic thinking", which is to
> say, no real thinking or free discussion at all.
>
> =A0 I certainly haven't known anyone in my life
> who was brave -- or reckless -- enough to
> openly admit they supported communism,
> and even the pages of Chess Life have
> contained numerous wild-eyed attacks in
> much the same vein as the hysterical
> reactions to Mr.Wade'scriticisms.
>
> =A0 If you recall, there was a time when folks
> who did not toe the party line here in the USA
> were dragged before congressional hearings
> to be persecuted via the power of the state.
> A Russian emigre witnessing this spectacle
> would perhaps be "fondly reminded" of home.
>
> > I have no love of commie-bashing; I was disgusted by the attacks of
> > Republicans in the recent campaign to label even mildly redistributive
> > plans as socialist and thus somehow trying to link them in people's
> > mind to the evils of =A0the Soviet Union.
>
> =A0 You lost me there. =A0As I see it, folks like
> Michael Moore could be accused of pro-
> moting socialism, because he has painted
> a very positive picture of real socialist
> countries like France, for instance.
> =A0 But why you wish to confound commun-
> ism for socialism, I do not know.
>
> > However, I believe (as certain
> > American Socialists in my family who were vehemently anti-communist
> > did at the time) that it is important for the political left to
> > denounce firmly, and thus disassociate itself from, the true evil of
> > the totalitarian system under the Soviet Union which called itself
> > communist.
>
> =A0 Uh, we Americans also called it that. =A0What's
> the trick in saying they called themselves that?
>
> > I am not trying to judgeWadein general, but this particular
> > statement is not one that reflects well on his political judgment.
>
> =A0 Once again, I feel obligated to point out the
> obvious: you need to find out who those
> Westerners he referred to were, or show
> that Mr.Wadewas just making it all up.
>
> =A0 His comment reported supposed facts; he
> did not comment on communisn or on
> socialism. =A0 What he did do was critique the
> specific arguments made by one commie-
> basher. =A0 =A0If you feel that this chap's
> arguments hold up well to scrutiny, then
> feel free to support them here. =A0 My view is
> that Mr.Wadedid a fair job of skewering
> them, but I would prefer he named names--
> telling us precisely to whom he referred. =A0I
> do not think it wise to rely upon the nutters
> of that time to have done any research in
> this vein, but from what I saw, there was
> not one who challenged his remark.
>
> =A0 As I said before, this all seems to be about
> others' fear and hatred of communism, and
> not at all about Mr.Wade'sactual remarks.
> Nobody seems eager to discuss anything
> he actually did, but everyone wants to
> project commie-promotion onto Mr.Wade,
> apparently because he did not hop on the
> commie-bashing bandwagon and yell, ye-
> haw!
>
> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 12 Dec 2008 22:54:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 13, 12:49=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> Critiques of commie-bashing are fine; defenses of Stalinism are
> deserving of ridicule. Let us look at the whole statement on political
> discussion in the Soviet Union which Wade makes.
>
> "Evidence of Western visitors to the Soviet Union is that political
> discussion and activity is encouraged and exists, though naturally
> discussion is bounded by the general framework of a communist State
> just as discussion in the USA is bounded by their constitution."
>
> This statement seems to me to buy into the notion, believed by only a
> few people by 1949, that there is a rough equivalence between freedom
> of political discussion in the Soviet Union under Stalin and freedom
> of political discussion in a Western democracy. I belive that we can
> all agree (in 2008) that this is absurd, and deserves ridicule.

You are sadly mistaken; we do not agree on
that point at all.

As I have pointed out here in rgc several
times, the current state of affairs is such that
most American writers are hamstrung by the
political and religious dogma of our times.

One of many points I've made was that these
pundits try to have everything both ways-- they
will write about all "good" as emanating from
capitalism/western values, and all evils as
emerging by-rote from the hated communism
monster. These talking heads simply cannot
help themselves. The state is not forcing this
upon them, as commie-bashers will insist
happens over there, but the effect is much
the same-- "dogmatic thinking", which is to
say, no real thinking or free discussion at all.

I certainly haven't known anyone in my life
who was brave -- or reckless -- enough to
openly admit they supported communism,
and even the pages of Chess Life have
contained numerous wild-eyed attacks in
much the same vein as the hysterical
reactions to Mr. Wade's criticisms.

If you recall, there was a time when folks
who did not toe the party line here in the USA
were dragged before congressional hearings
to be persecuted via the power of the state.
A Russian emigre witnessing this spectacle
would perhaps be "fondly reminded" of home.

> I have no love of commie-bashing; I was disgusted by the attacks of
> Republicans in the recent campaign to label even mildly redistributive
> plans as socialist and thus somehow trying to link them in people's
> mind to the evils of =A0the Soviet Union.

You lost me there. As I see it, folks like
Michael Moore could be accused of pro-
moting socialism, because he has painted
a very positive picture of real socialist
countries like France, for instance.
But why you wish to confound commun-
ism for socialism, I do not know.

> However, I believe (as certain
> American Socialists in my family who were vehemently anti-communist
> did at the time) that it is important for the political left to
> denounce firmly, and thus disassociate itself from, the true evil of
> the totalitarian system under the Soviet Union which called itself
> communist.

Uh, we Americans also called it that. What's
the trick in saying they called themselves that?

> I am not trying to judge Wade in general, but this particular
> statement is not one that reflects well on his political judgment.

Once again, I feel obligated to point out the
obvious: you need to find out who those
Westerners he referred to were, or show
that Mr. Wade was just making it all up.

His comment reported supposed facts; he
did not comment on communisn or on
socialism. What he did do was critique the
specific arguments made by one commie-
basher. If you feel that this chap's
arguments hold up well to scrutiny, then
feel free to support them here. My view is
that Mr. Wade did a fair job of skewering
them, but I would prefer he named names--
telling us precisely to whom he referred. I
do not think it wise to rely upon the nutters
of that time to have done any research in
this vein, but from what I saw, there was
not one who challenged his remark.

As I said before, this all seems to be about
others' fear and hatred of communism, and
not at all about Mr. Wade's actual remarks.
Nobody seems eager to discuss anything
he actually did, but everyone wants to
project commie-promotion onto Mr. Wade,
apparently because he did not hop on the
commie-bashing bandwagon and yell, ye-
haw!

-- help bot

Date: 12 Dec 2008 21:49:42
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

Critiques of commie-bashing are fine; defenses of Stalinism are
deserving of ridicule. Let us look at the whole statement on political
discussion in the Soviet Union which Wade makes.

"Evidence of Western visitors to the Soviet Union is that political
discussion and activity is encouraged and exists, though naturally
discussion is bounded by the general framework of a communist State
just as discussion in the USA is bounded by their constitution."

This statement seems to me to buy into the notion, believed by only a
few people by 1949, that there is a rough equivalence between freedom
of political discussion in the Soviet Union under Stalin and freedom
of political discussion in a Western democracy. I belive that we can
all agree (in 2008) that this is absurd, and deserves ridicule.

I have no love of commie-bashing; I was disgusted by the attacks of
Republicans in the recent campaign to label even mildly redistributive
plans as socialist and thus somehow trying to link them in people's
mind to the evils of the Soviet Union. However, I believe (as certain
American Socialists in my family who were vehemently anti-communist
did at the time) that it is important for the political left to
denounce firmly, and thus disassociate itself from, the true evil of
the totalitarian system under the Soviet Union which called itself
communist.

I am not trying to judge Wade in general, but this particular
statement is not one that reflects well on his political judgment.

Jerry Spinrad

On Dec 12, 9:25=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:42=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > =A0 --snipped ad hominem--
> > Which statement do you object to?
>
> =A0 Shall I make a numbered list?
>
> =A0 1) =A0The suggestion that I did not in fact
> read the article, which is ludicrous. =A0 =A0My
> earlier critique of Mr. Kingston's errors
> was based entirely on what was contained
> in his posts here; I skewered his logic, or
> rather his habitual _illogic_.
>
> =A0 Had I not afterward read the article, I
> would have had nothing new to add;
> this is simple logic.
>
> --
>
> =A0 I feel a bit like the fellow in the movie
> Ice Station Zebra, who was suspected
> by the captain of being the saboteur who
> had tried to sink their submarine. =A0 As he
> explained (to Rock Hudson), he was /in
> charge of the mission/, and could easily
> find some way to subvert it which did
> not entail his own death at the bottom
> of the sea.
>
> > I say that in 1949, you should long
> > have realized that the Soviet Union was repressive
>
> =A0 You are missing the thread. =A0 =A0All those
> assaults on Mr. Wade had determined to
> "interpret" his comments as pro-
> communist, pro-Soviet Union, political
> claptrap. =A0 But as I read them, they are
> *critiques*, just like my own poking of
> holes in Mr. Kingston's unreasoning.
>
> =A0 It is sheer lunacy to assume that a
> critique of commie-bashing claptrap
> amounts to the same thing as promotion
> of commie claptrap, which is precisely
> what the nutters have done. =A0 In fact, I
> would argue that such criticism aids in
> helping the commie-bashers to improve
> their work, much as pointing out weak
> moves helps a player to improve his
> chess.
>
> > =A0and the statement
> > that political activity is encouraged there deserves some ridicule.
>
> =A0 Again, you missed the mark. =A0 Mr. Wade
> claimed that Westerners who visited the
> Soviet Union came back *reporting* the
> opposite of what one commie-basher had
> written.
>
> =A0 Now then, in order to refute this you need
> to find out who these Westerners were,
> and if they did in fact make such reports,
> or, if Mr. Wade invented all this just for fun.
>
> > Is this your notion of ad hominem?
>
> =A0 I'm willing to stick with the standard
> definition of ad hominem-- how about
> you?
>
> > Man, if you have to be polite about attacking Stalin, we are a much
> > more polite group than I realized!
>
> =A0 I think Mr. Parr is the right guy to appoint
> as our official rgc Stalin basher. =A0 Now, in
> what way do you /imagine/ Mr. Wade as
> supporting Mr. Stalin? =A0 =A0Are you in favor
> of silencing critics of commie-bashing
> propaganda, and if so, would you go so
> far as to prohibit spelling corrections as
> well? =A0 Just how far in this vein are you
> willing to go?
>
> =A0 Personally, I think the light of day is the
> perfect antiseptic for all propaganda, be
> it pro or con. =A0 This was all discussed at
> some length by our rgc Stalin basher, LP,
> some time ago. =A0 He seemed to like
> some book about the Gulags, as I recall.
>
> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 15 Dec 2008 04:20:34
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 14, 5:43=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2:53=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Jeez, Phil, you mention Koestler above but only in relation to
> > distribution of "1984"? =A0 "Darkness at Noon" was published in 1940. S=
o
> > Spinrad's reference to 1949 is conservative.
>
> I just wonder what you all think you know since you have very strong
> opinions about what the West knew of Stalin before 1950. And despite
> the Historian's response, and Dr. Spinrad's efforts, the necessary
> correction to what I wrote hasn't appeared yet.

Probably because none of us are obliged to correct everything you
post. Who would want to have to clean that stable?!?

Date: 14 Dec 2008 16:56:30
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

Leftists abandoned their belief in the Soviet Union at various points
of time. Interestingly, many socialists never approved of the Soviet
Union, since they realized from internal political battles that the
Bolsheviks were completely ruthless. Of course, the Soviets often
openly declared their contempt for "bushwa" democracy, so committed
democrats had no reason to have great trust in their system. The fact
that the Kerensky government which the Bolsheviks overthrew was itself
led by Mensheviks also made large segments of the left opponents
rather than supporters of the Soviet Union.

Still, there were large parts of the democratic left who made excuses
for the Soviet system. People found it harder and harder to make
excuses as Stalin's excesses became knowns, and the show trials in the
30s showed most people that the system was just another brutal
dictatorship. In the United States, this (along with Roosevelt
adopting many policies which the Socialists advocated) led to the
collapse of the Socialist party as a serious political movement. Even
on the extreme left, Stalin's treatment of Trotsky and others led to
many in the communist movement seeing the Soviet Union as a repressive
rather than progressive government.

There were some who were willing to make allowances again when the
communists seemed to be the only force confronting Hitler, but when
Hitler and Stalin signed their pact, these people were generally
disillusioned.

Darkness at Noon has been mentioned here; it was modeled on the show
trials of the 30s, and reflects the realization of many leftists that
the Soviet Union was just another dictatorship as a result of these
trials and purges.

By 1949, even most hard-core leftists viewed the Soviet Union as ruled
by Stalin as so repressive that it was something of an embarrassment
to their cause; the few remaining believers were derided as dupes at
the time, and history has shown that they were indeed dupes, that the
Soviet Union at that time was almost unbelievably repressive.

It does not make people who said the Soviet Union encouraged political
discussion bad people, but that someone would say such things in 1949
is certainly noteworthy, and indicates at best political naivete on
their part.

Jerry Spinrad

On Dec 14, 1:53=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 05:21:46 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >This is the era of the publication of 1984 about totalitarian systems.
> >I wonder if its well known who blocked the book from distribution to
> >the Soviet Bloc?
> >Eventually, Arthur Koestler assured Eric Blair that some Ukrainian
> >editions got through, because they were distributed directly to
> >displaced Ukrainians - but a couple thousand copies were seized.
> >In is interesting that Dr. Spinrad says that by 49 people knew about
> >Stalinism. In fact Blair was arrested in WWII by British police/
> >security for possessing a copy of Zamyatin's 'We' [an inspiration for
> >1984, BTW] and his publisher had to call the cops off by saying [lying
> >actually] that he was required to have the title in order to review
> >it.
> >So - information on totalitarian systems was repressed in the West for
> >readers in the East and in the West.
>
> Jeez, Phil, you mention Koestler above but only in relation to
> distribution of "1984"? =A0 "Darkness at Noon" was published in 1940. So
> Spinrad's reference to 1949 is conservative.
>
> >Secondly, it is a non-sence to compare 'Stalinism'
> >with communism. Soviet citizens might as well have suffered the
> >attention of Fascist Mussolini as their leader, the only perceptable
> >differences might be a slightly better cut of uniform.
>
> Bad as Mussolini was, he didn't remotely compare to Stalin, if only
> because he was much less competent.

Date: 14 Dec 2008 14:43:20
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 14, 2:53=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 05:21:46 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >This is the era of the publication of 1984 about totalitarian systems.
> >I wonder if its well known who blocked the book from distribution to
> >the Soviet Bloc?
> >Eventually, Arthur Koestler assured Eric Blair that some Ukrainian
> >editions got through, because they were distributed directly to
> >displaced Ukrainians - but a couple thousand copies were seized.
> >In is interesting that Dr. Spinrad says that by 49 people knew about
> >Stalinism. In fact Blair was arrested in WWII by British police/
> >security for possessing a copy of Zamyatin's 'We' [an inspiration for
> >1984, BTW] and his publisher had to call the cops off by saying [lying
> >actually] that he was required to have the title in order to review
> >it.
> >So - information on totalitarian systems was repressed in the West for
> >readers in the East and in the West.
>
> Jeez, Phil, you mention Koestler above but only in relation to
> distribution of "1984"? =A0 "Darkness at Noon" was published in 1940. So
> Spinrad's reference to 1949 is conservative.

I just wonder what you all think you know since you have very strong
opinions about what the West knew of Stalin before 1950. And despite
the Historian's response, and Dr. Spinrad's efforts, the necessary
correction to what I wrote hasn't appeared yet. It was the Ukrainian
edition of Animal Farm which was repressed by Uncle Sam! same as 'We'
was by both UK and US - since it was allied /policy/ not to annoy
Stalin, even if this meant suppressing private citizen's views and
that of their publishers. This refutes Spinrad absolutely.

Darkness at Noon has nothing to do with this subject - Koestler told
Blair after the war the fate of his Ukrainian edition [impounded by
US], while at the same time Blair told Koestler not to trust Lasky,
the communist lacky currently employed by Her Majesty's Government.

> >Secondly, it is a non-sence to compare 'Stalinism'
> >with communism. Soviet citizens might as well have suffered the
> >attention of Fascist Mussolini as their leader, the only perceptable
> >differences might be a slightly better cut of uniform.
>
> Bad as Mussolini was, he didn't remotely compare to Stalin, if only
> because he was much less competent.

You don't understand. It doesn't matter to the oppressed who does the
oppressing* - and here it wasn't even political systems which
oppressed - it was an age of Dictators. Ezra Pound loved Mussolini,
broadcast war propaganda for him. 'The strong leader' stuff, still
much beloved in the world.

Phil Innes

* remember in Zhivago the woman in the storm who was asked if her
oppressors were Whites or Reds? "Soldiers, soldiers", was her reply.

Date: 12 Dec 2008 19:25:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 12, 9:42=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> > =A0 --snipped ad hominem--

> Which statement do you object to?

Shall I make a numbered list?

1) The suggestion that I did not in fact
read the article, which is ludicrous. My
earlier critique of Mr. Kingston's errors
was based entirely on what was contained
in his posts here; I skewered his logic, or
rather his habitual _illogic_.

Had I not afterward read the article, I
would have had nothing new to add;
this is simple logic.

--

I feel a bit like the fellow in the movie
Ice Station Zebra, who was suspected
by the captain of being the saboteur who
had tried to sink their submarine. As he
explained (to Rock Hudson), he was /in
charge of the mission/, and could easily
find some way to subvert it which did
not entail his own death at the bottom
of the sea.

> I say that in 1949, you should long
> have realized that the Soviet Union was repressive

You are missing the thread. All those
assaults on Mr. Wade had determined to
"interpret" his comments as pro-
communist, pro-Soviet Union, political
claptrap. But as I read them, they are
*critiques*, just like my own poking of
holes in Mr. Kingston's unreasoning.

It is sheer lunacy to assume that a
critique of commie-bashing claptrap
amounts to the same thing as promotion
of commie claptrap, which is precisely
what the nutters have done. In fact, I
would argue that such criticism aids in
helping the commie-bashers to improve
their work, much as pointing out weak
moves helps a player to improve his
chess.

> and the statement
> that political activity is encouraged there deserves some ridicule.

Again, you missed the mark. Mr. Wade
claimed that Westerners who visited the
Soviet Union came back *reporting* the
opposite of what one commie-basher had
written.

Now then, in order to refute this you need
to find out who these Westerners were,
and if they did in fact make such reports,
or, if Mr. Wade invented all this just for fun.

> Is this your notion of ad hominem?

I'm willing to stick with the standard
definition of ad hominem-- how about
you?

> Man, if you have to be polite about attacking Stalin, we are a much
> more polite group than I realized!

I think Mr. Parr is the right guy to appoint
as our official rgc Stalin basher. Now, in
what way do you /imagine/ Mr. Wade as
supporting Mr. Stalin? Are you in favor
of silencing critics of commie-bashing
propaganda, and if so, would you go so
far as to prohibit spelling corrections as
well? Just how far in this vein are you
willing to go?

Personally, I think the light of day is the
perfect antiseptic for all propaganda, be
it pro or con. This was all discussed at
some length by our rgc Stalin basher, LP,
some time ago. He seemed to like
some book about the Gulags, as I recall.

-- help bot

Date: 12 Dec 2008 18:42:55
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 12, 5:33=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 12, 4:56=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =A0 --snipped ad hominem--
>
> =A0 Uh... there seems to be nothing left. =A0Go
> figure.
>
> =A0 -- help bot

Which statement do you object to? I say that in 1949, you should long
have realized that the Soviet Union was repressive, and the statement
that political activity is encouraged there deserves some ridicule. Is
this your notion of ad hominem?

Man, if you have to be polite about attacking Stalin, we are a much
more polite group than I realized!

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 12 Dec 2008 15:33:50
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 12, 4:56=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

--snipped ad hominem--

Uh... there seems to be nothing left. Go
figure.

-- help bot

Date: 12 Dec 2008 15:31:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 12, 2:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> > > Our Taylor persists in a simple labeling experiment, utterly negligen=
t

> > =A0 Well, now that I've read the article by Mr. Winter,
> > with all of its hysterical anti-communist propaganda
> > and ridiculous bickering over who was a Nazi and
> > who was a Commie and who, a Capitalist savior,
> > I've come to the inescapeable conclusion that this
> > was all just a bunch of nitwits, posturing.

> Among several of its statements from Wade,
> one sentence by itself speaks volumes about his
> political leanings: "Evidence of Western visitors to the
> Soviet Union is that political discussion and activity is encouraged
> and exists ..."

As I recall offhand, there followed a comment
which /qualified that remark/, and took a poke
at Westerners for their very similar ways of
limiting the political discussion. I would add
that in my thousands of received emailed and
snail-mailed newsletters, there is abundant
evidence in support of that jab. For instance,
if China is doing well, we are lectured that it
is because of them having already adopted
capitalism; but at the same time, if anything
goes wrong (i.e. public demonstrations), we
are informed that it is because they have not
yet adopted capitalism. Such idiocy as this
deserves rebuke.

> =A0 I don't attack Wade for believing that in 1949, many people were
> similarly mistaken

The fact remains that it is Mr. Kingston and
the other hysterical commmie-bashers who
have erred. Mr. Wade's criticisms are just
as solid now as they were back then.

As we saw in the matters of wild speculation
regarding "Soviet cheating", nitwits have been
proved wrong, time and again. We saw how
Larry Evans was shot down, how paranoids
like Bobby Fischer were proved wrong, and
we saw how some folks just can't reason at
all, and are given to emotional ranting and
raving-- especially with regard to politics and
religion.

As we saw here in this thread, my points
hit so hard that Mr. Kingston could not even
begin to address them, going over to his
usual, juvenile ad hominem attacks on the
critics.

-- help bot

Date: 12 Dec 2008 13:56:27
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 12, 1:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2:07=A0am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 5:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Our Taylor persists in a simple labeling experiment, utterly negligen=
t
> > > of my comment to him about the Queen's own award for his services. Wh=
y
> > > he insists on such stuff, or any such stuff as his suppositions on an=
y
> > > subject is a topic I said I would not answer in this thread. So I let
> > > him go with his vagueries and aspersions.
>
> > > If he were English rather than Californian, this would be a more
> > > serious offence on his part - but I do not wish to celebrate his
> > > 'understanding' here, since he himself avoided a nasty Soviet even
> > > after being informed about the gent, in his own interview.
>
> > > Let that go. Bob Wade did not promote left or right chess in England =
-
> > > he promoted chess, period. You can't even tell from his game scores
> > > how pink or true-blue he may have been.
>
> > =A0 Well, now that I've read the article by Mr. Winter,
> > with all of its hysterical anti-communist propaganda
> > and ridiculous bickering over who was a Nazi and
> > who was a Commie and who, a Capitalist savior,
> > I've come to the inescapeable conclusion that this
> > was all just a bunch of nitwits, posturing.
>
> =A0 I might make a detailed reply, but what would be the point? Help-bot
> obviously knows nothing about the issues being discussed in the 1949
> excerpts, and as usual, what he does not know about he belittles as
> not worth knowing.
>
> > =A0 There was nothing whatsoever in Mr. Wade's
> > commentary which identified his political leaning,
> > one way or another.
>
Hmmm, Greg, I thought you said you read the article. Among several
of its statements from Wade, one sentence by itself speaks volumes
about his political leanings: "Evidence of Western visitors to the
Soviet Union is that political discussion and activity is encouraged
and exists ..."
I don't attack Wade for believing that in 1949, many people were
similarly mistaken about the USSR around that time and in preceding
years.

Actually, you had to be quite naive or biased to believe this in 1949.
There were people and groups who believed this in 1949, but then the
fact that there are now people and groups who believe that the US and/
or Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks doesn't mean that the people who
believe in it deserve respect for their beliefs.

Jerry Spinrad

But I find it doubtful that Wade could have continued to
> believe that very much longer. I'd like to know if he did or not, and
> what he said if/when he changed his mind.
> =A0 Greg, you obviously don't know the answer to this. So, how about you
> do us a favor, keep your ignorance quiet, and allow someone who might
> know the answer to speak?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 12 Dec 2008 11:40:48
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 12, 2:07=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Our Taylor persists in a simple labeling experiment, utterly negligent
> > of my comment to him about the Queen's own award for his services. Why
> > he insists on such stuff, or any such stuff as his suppositions on any
> > subject is a topic I said I would not answer in this thread. So I let
> > him go with his vagueries and aspersions.
>
> > If he were English rather than Californian, this would be a more
> > serious offence on his part - but I do not wish to celebrate his
> > 'understanding' here, since he himself avoided a nasty Soviet even
> > after being informed about the gent, in his own interview.
>
> > Let that go. Bob Wade did not promote left or right chess in England -
> > he promoted chess, period. You can't even tell from his game scores
> > how pink or true-blue he may have been.
>
> =A0 Well, now that I've read the article by Mr. Winter,
> with all of its hysterical anti-communist propaganda
> and ridiculous bickering over who was a Nazi and
> who was a Commie and who, a Capitalist savior,
> I've come to the inescapeable conclusion that this
> was all just a bunch of nitwits, posturing.

I might make a detailed reply, but what would be the point? Help-bot
obviously knows nothing about the issues being discussed in the 1949
excerpts, and as usual, what he does not know about he belittles as
not worth knowing.

> =A0 There was nothing whatsoever in Mr. Wade's
> commentary which identified his political leaning,
> one way or another.

Hmmm, Greg, I thought you said you read the article. Among several
of its statements from Wade, one sentence by itself speaks volumes
about his political leanings: "Evidence of Western visitors to the
Soviet Union is that political discussion and activity is encouraged
and exists ..."
I don't attack Wade for believing that in 1949, many people were
similarly mistaken about the USSR around that time and in preceding
years. But I find it doubtful that Wade could have continued to
believe that very much longer. I'd like to know if he did or not, and
what he said if/when he changed his mind.
Greg, you obviously don't know the answer to this. So, how about you
do us a favor, keep your ignorance quiet, and allow someone who might
know the answer to speak?

Date: 11 Dec 2008 23:07:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 2, 5:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> Our Taylor persists in a simple labeling experiment, utterly negligent
> of my comment to him about the Queen's own award for his services. Why
> he insists on such stuff, or any such stuff as his suppositions on any
> subject is a topic I said I would not answer in this thread. So I let
> him go with his vagueries and aspersions.
>
> If he were English rather than Californian, this would be a more
> serious offence on his part - but I do not wish to celebrate his
> 'understanding' here, since he himself avoided a nasty Soviet even
> after being informed about the gent, in his own interview.
>
> Let that go. Bob Wade did not promote left or right chess in England -
> he promoted chess, period. You can't even tell from his game scores
> how pink or true-blue he may have been.

Well, now that I've read the article by Mr. Winter,
with all of its hysterical anti-communist propaganda
and ridiculous bickering over who was a Nazi and
who was a Commie and who, a Capitalist savior,
I've come to the inescapeable conclusion that this
was all just a bunch of nitwits, posturing.

There was nothing whatsoever in Mr. Wade's
commentary which identified his political leaning,
one way or another. Much of the "material"
presented in the attacks on Mr. Wade was of a
juvenile ad hominem sort, hardly worth anyone
bothering over; clearly, Mr. Kingston's stuff is of
the same stripe. One might hope that after all
these years, fears of a communist "world
takeover" would have faded out a bit, but it
seems the hysteria lives on in the minds of a
few nutters... .

-- help bot

Date: 11 Dec 2008 16:20:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 11, 4:30=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> =A0 As examples of the sort of naively rosy view Wade had about the
> USSR, a few quotes from the article, taken from a letter Wade wrote in
> 1949:
>
> =A0 "I have understood that one of the aims of the Soviet Union is not
> to obtain a standardized equality for all people but to give equal
> opportunities to all, and to provide rewards as an incentive for
> accomplishments, a sentiment that one who is not a Communist could
> readily agree to."
>
> =A0 "Evidence of Western visitors to the Soviet Union is that political
> discussion and activity is encouraged and exists ..."
>
> =A0 "I refuse to believe that any State organizes recreation just to
> prevent political thought."
>
> =A0 Even in 1949 a lot was known about the USSR that contradicted such
> views. By, say, 1989, it's hard to see how any reasonable person could
> continue in such beliefs. That's why I wonder how Wade faced that
> problem, if he ever discussed such things publicly.

Most of the above comments sound as if
they were /criticisms/ of bold, sweeping claims
which over-reached any rational boundries.

For instance, in a discussion of the strength
of Dr. IMnes, Mr. Kingston might point out that
PI has never been anywhere near to the IM
level; taken out of context, this could easily be
/twisted/ into an attack on Dr. IMnes' strength,
even though TK might well regard the Expert
level as quite respectable-- just not as high as
the claim he was actually skewering.

The final comment, that "by 1989, it's hard
to see how any reasonable person could
/continue/ in such beliefs", assumes a sort
of baked-in petrification, which neglects the
fact of significant changes over time.

Perhaps if there were any /substantive/ way
for TK to skewer the statements quoted
above, we would be treated to them, and not
just to a mere personal opinion regarding
BW's alleged naivete.

The most striking example of my point is
the comment regarding the matter of the
USSR purportedly organizing recreation for
the sole purpose of averting political thought
amongst its citizens. This strikes one as an
obvious retort to what can only be described
as a /ridiculous/ claim-- the sort we often see
here in rgc from the nitwitted Evans ratpack-
ers.
I see no reason to make the giant leap of
illogic from the above criticisms, to a position
of BW necessarily being a dyed-in-the-wool
communist. Earlier comments by others
described BW as a "socialist"; where is the
beef-- the meat-and-potatoes of evidence
that BW was clearly one or the other? (And
why has an accusation of fascism been
neglected? I suppose that in 1949, that one
had gone out of fashion.)

-- help bot

Date: 11 Dec 2008 13:30:24
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 11, 4:17=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 2, 11:01=A0am, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Taylor, you are bang on the money in your description of Wade's politic=
al
> > views. =A0Al Horowitz (and Chess Review) would have nothing to do with =
him
> > back then. =A0I know nothing, however, of his later views.
>
> =A0 This Edward Winter article, about a dispute between the then
> communist Pachman, and the anti-communist Soviet expatriate
> Bohatirchuk, also has quite a bit from and about Robert Wade:
>
> =A0http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/pachman.html

As examples of the sort of naively rosy view Wade had about the
USSR, a few quotes from the article, taken from a letter Wade wrote in
1949:

"I have understood that one of the aims of the Soviet Union is not
to obtain a standardized equality for all people but to give equal
opportunities to all, and to provide rewards as an incentive for
accomplishments, a sentiment that one who is not a Communist could
readily agree to."

"Evidence of Western visitors to the Soviet Union is that political
discussion and activity is encouraged and exists ..."

"I refuse to believe that any State organizes recreation just to
prevent political thought."

Even in 1949 a lot was known about the USSR that contradicted such
views. By, say, 1989, it's hard to see how any reasonable person could
continue in such beliefs. That's why I wonder how Wade faced that
problem, if he ever discussed such things publicly.

Date: 11 Dec 2008 13:17:17
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 2, 11:01=A0am, "Ian Burton" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Taylor, you are bang on the money in your description of Wade's political
> views. =A0Al Horowitz (and Chess Review) would have nothing to do with hi=
m
> back then. =A0I know nothing, however, of his later views.

This Edward Winter article, about a dispute between the then
communist Pachman, and the anti-communist Soviet expatriate
Bohatirchuk, also has quite a bit from and about Robert Wade:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/pachman.html

Date: 02 Dec 2008 18:14:21
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 2, 5:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Our Taylor persists in a simple labeling experiment, utterly negligent
> of my comment to him about the Queen's own award for his services.

No, I merely persisted with a direct question, which, it appears, no
one here can answer.

> Why he insists on such stuff, or any such stuff ...

Why? Quite simply: curiosity. Major disillusionments, if and when
they happen, are an important part of a person's biography, especially
if they happen to be of the religious and/or political sort.

> Let that go. Bob Wade did not promote left or right chess in England -
> he promoted chess, period.

Never said otherwise.

> You can't even tell from his game scores
> how pink or true-blue he may have been.

But one can tell his opinions on other matters from his statements
on those matters.

Date: 02 Dec 2008 17:07:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 2, 5:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> > > =A0 In bringing up Wade's political views I am in no
> > > way trying to slight him. He had a perfect right to his opinions. But
> > > I'm interested in the cases of pro-Soviet Westerners who eventually
> > > had to face facts and abandon their cherished illusions about the
> > > USSR. I wondered if and how Wade handled that problem.

> > =A0 I would be interesting in seeing a list of names
> > of these alleged delusionals-- for comparison
> > purposes.

> Our Taylor persists in a simple labeling experiment, utterly negligent
> of my comment to him about the Queen's own award for his services.

The label "communist" was, I think, applied in
the Mark Crowther article. Somebody else
tossed out the term "socialist". Both of these
are perceived as powerful threats to the main
line ("Always play 1. P-K4!"; or capitalism).

One confused chap noted that an American
took offense at Mr. Wade's commie-isticality
and this was in response to the idea that BW
"never got a major newspaper column". To
this I would ask, how is America relevant?
The boigraphies list Mr. Wade as being from
New Zealand, living (and dying) in Great
Britain. Even the language is different (as is
readily apparent when installing Windows,
and they are given as two seperate choices).

> Why he insists on such stuff, or any such stuff as his suppositions on an=
y
> subject is a topic I said I would not answer in this thread. So I let
> him go with his vagueries and aspersions.

Well, he specifically pointed to a Mr. Horowitz,
if I recall correctly; but then, letting someone
else do your thinking for you only works if you
pick someone a lot smarter than you are.

> If he were English rather than Californian, this would be a more
> serious offence on his part - but I do not wish to celebrate his
> 'understanding' here, since he himself avoided a nasty Soviet even
> after being informed about the gent, in his own interview.

Indeed, even The Great Pedant, Edward
Winter, has complained about this kind of "easy"
interview style. There just isn't any hard-hitting,
real journalism in the chess world. Wannabee
journalists are too concerned about chasing off
an irritated interviewee, so they just brown-nose.

> Let that go. Bob Wade did not promote left or right chess in England -
> he promoted chess, period. You can't even tell from his game scores
> how pink or true-blue he may have been.

And let's not forget about the other two
bugaboo subjects-- religion and baseball.
Was BW a Yankees fan in the heyday of
Babe Ruth? A goddamn atheist then?
That could explain why the FIDE laws of
chess have so often been criticized. (BW
was on the original FIDE laws committee.)

What I take away from all this nonsense
is the feeling that some folks are all-
consumed with "defending capitalism";
these are the same guys who will tell you
it is inconquerable; thus no real threat can
exist. I enjoy reading about China in my
email newsletters, where I am told time
and again that when things go wrong, it is
because China is /still communist/; but
when anything goes right (i.e. economic
growth, etc.), it is because China is /no
longer communist/. Some people just
want to have their cake and eat it, too;
and it is a sure-fire signal that their whole
world view is a disorganized mess.

-- help bot

Date: 02 Dec 2008 14:24:01
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 1, 1:12=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 1, 10:11=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > =A0 I'm curious about one thing: did Wade ever change his political
> > > > opinions significantly? I recall that back in the 1950s he was one =
of
> > > > the most gullibly pro-Soviet of Western masters
> > =A0 "The fact that he never got a daily column in a major newspaper is =
a
> > real shame as he was the source of much of the material to other
> > journalists at that time. People have said that his politics (he was a
> > communist) probably cost him in this area."
>
> =A0 =A0What people? =A0 Why not let BW speak for
> himself instead of alluding to alleged opinions
> of unnamed talking-heads? =A0 =A0(I ask this only
> because of the large number of times some
> nitwit or other has attempted in vain to repre-
> sent my own views on various subjects,
> missing the mark by a country mile.)
>
> > =A0My impression of Wade was that he was, at least
> > for a time, rather pro-Soviet. I wondered if he ever
> > changed his mind on that score.
> > =A0 In bringing up Wade's political views I am in no
> > way trying to slight him. He had a perfect right to his opinions. But
> > I'm interested in the cases of pro-Soviet Westerners who eventually
> > had to face facts and abandon their cherished illusions about the
> > USSR. I wondered if and how Wade handled that problem.
>
> =A0 I would be interesting in seeing a list of names
> of these alleged delusionals-- for comparison
> purposes.

Our Taylor persists in a simple labeling experiment, utterly negligent
of my comment to him about the Queen's own award for his services. Why
he insists on such stuff, or any such stuff as his suppositions on any
subject is a topic I said I would not answer in this thread. So I let
him go with his vagueries and aspersions.

If he were English rather than Californian, this would be a more
serious offence on his part - but I do not wish to celebrate his
'understanding' here, since he himself avoided a nasty Soviet even
after being informed about the gent, in his own interview.

Let that go. Bob Wade did not promote left or right chess in England -
he promoted chess, period. You can't even tell from his game scores
how pink or true-blue he may have been.

Phil Innes

> =A0 You see, the vast majority of pundits
> I've seen are of precisely the opposite persuasion;
> the facts would seem to be a major problem for
> all those rabidly anti-Soviet Weserners, who
> indeed cherish their numerous delusions.
>
> =A0 Few of these are directly related to Mr. Wade.
> And in fact I am surprised that no one has posted
> his famous draw with Bobby Fischer. =A0 Over here
> in the USA, the name "Wade" is a familiar one to
> players who read lots of chess books, but not all
> his work was properly credited. =A0 One interview
> had Mr. Wade claiming that he had done two-
> thirds of an old MCO-- traditionally credited to
> Walter Korn. =A0 In addition, Mr. Wade was one of
> many who contributed in some way to Bobby
> Fischer's conquest of the FIDE world champion-
> ship title in 1972.
>
> =A0 As so often happens, these short biographies
> leave one wanting; in one of them, Mr. Wade was
> "a farmer", who transported himself around the
> globe, as if by magic. =A0 But how? =A0 Where did all
> this money to travel the world come from? =A0Was
> it then a gigantic farm; or perhaps, did they grow
> an unusually-profitble crop? =A0 Alas, the Brittish
> style of writers seem to take wealth as a matter
> of course; traipsing around the globe is just
> normal, everyday life. =A0 (Yet the vast majority of
> people I've known could not afford to do this
> sort of thing-- not even on a shoestring budget,
> riding Greyhound buses.)
> =A0 Indeed, interview commentary has it that Mr.
> Wade just scraped along financially, but it also
> notes that he had /one of the largest chess
> book collections in the world/. =A0 These bizarre
> contradictions can be interesting to reflect upon.
>
> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 01 Dec 2008 10:12:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 1, 10:11=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> > > =A0 I'm curious about one thing: did Wade ever change his political
> > > opinions significantly? I recall that back in the 1950s he was one of
> > > the most gullibly pro-Soviet of Western masters

> =A0 "The fact that he never got a daily column in a major newspaper is a
> real shame as he was the source of much of the material to other
> journalists at that time. People have said that his politics (he was a
> communist) probably cost him in this area."

What people? Why not let BW speak for
himself instead of alluding to alleged opinions
of unnamed talking-heads? (I ask this only
because of the large number of times some
nitwit or other has attempted in vain to repre-
sent my own views on various subjects,
missing the mark by a country mile.)

> =A0My impression of Wade was that he was, at least
> for a time, rather pro-Soviet. I wondered if he ever
> changed his mind on that score.

> =A0 In bringing up Wade's political views I am in no
> way trying to slight him. He had a perfect right to his opinions. But
> I'm interested in the cases of pro-Soviet Westerners who eventually
> had to face facts and abandon their cherished illusions about the
> USSR. I wondered if and how Wade handled that problem.

I would be interesting in seeing a list of names
of these alleged delusionals-- for comparison
purposes. You see, the vast majority of pundits
I've seen are of precisely the opposite persuasion;
the facts would seem to be a major problem for
all those rabidly anti-Soviet Weserners, who
indeed cherish their numerous delusions.

Few of these are directly related to Mr. Wade.
And in fact I am surprised that no one has posted
his famous draw with Bobby Fischer. Over here
in the USA, the name "Wade" is a familiar one to
players who read lots of chess books, but not all
his work was properly credited. One interview
had Mr. Wade claiming that he had done two-
thirds of an old MCO-- traditionally credited to
Walter Korn. In addition, Mr. Wade was one of
many who contributed in some way to Bobby
Fischer's conquest of the FIDE world champion-
ship title in 1972.

As so often happens, these short biographies
leave one wanting; in one of them, Mr. Wade was
"a farmer", who transported himself around the
globe, as if by magic. But how? Where did all
this money to travel the world come from? Was
it then a gigantic farm; or perhaps, did they grow
an unusually-profitble crop? Alas, the Brittish
style of writers seem to take wealth as a matter
of course; traipsing around the globe is just
normal, everyday life. (Yet the vast majority of
people I've known could not afford to do this
sort of thing-- not even on a shoestring budget,
riding Greyhound buses.)
Indeed, interview commentary has it that Mr.
Wade just scraped along financially, but it also
notes that he had /one of the largest chess
book collections in the world/. These bizarre
contradictions can be interesting to reflect upon.

-- help bot

Date: 01 Dec 2008 07:11:54
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Dec 1, 8:45=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 30, 10:51=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 I'm curious about one thing: did Wade ever change his political
> > opinions significantly? I recall that back in the 1950s he was one of
> > the most gullibly pro-Soviet of Western masters, seeming to get his
> > opinions straight out of Pravda. Did disillusionment finally sink
> > in?

> A more fullsome tribute to the life and times of Bob Wade has now been
> put up by Mark Crowther at TWIC, and adds to the tributes already athttp:=
//www.chesscenter.com/twic/bobwade.html

> His political opinions circa 1950 were almost certainly to the Right
> of Laski ... Bob was a socialist,

The TWIC page you cite indicates he was a bit further left:

"The fact that he never got a daily column in a major newspaper is a
real shame as he was the source of much of the material to other
journalists at that time. People have said that his politics (he was a
communist) probably cost him in this area."

> and
> has approximately the same orientation as our own Bernie Sanders. 3/4
> of the major democracies in Western Europe are socialist.

One can be socialist without being pro-Soviet. My impression of Wade
was that he was, at least for a time, rather pro-Soviet. I wondered if
he ever changed his mind on that score.
Then again, it appears he did not always toe a party line. For
example, the Telegraph says:

"[H]e crossed swords with the Soviets over his support for players
who had fallen out of favour with the Communist authorities ..."

> While I do not think it particularly appropriate to continue this
> conversation, in this thread at this time - it should be noted that
> Bob Wade was honoured by the Queen for his services to the cultural
> life of his country.

Quite rightly so. In bringing up Wade's political views I am in no
way trying to slight him. He had a perfect right to his opinions. But
I'm interested in the cases of pro-Soviet Westerners who eventually
had to face facts and abandon their cherished illusions about the
USSR. I wondered if and how Wade handled that problem.

Date: 02 Dec 2008 09:01:22
From: Ian Burton
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

Taylor, you are bang on the money in your description of Wade's political
views. Al Horowitz (and Chess Review) would have nothing to do with him
back then. I know nothing, however, of his later views.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:27c8211a-0176-47f9-b52c-b7de29b22b79@d23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 1, 8:45 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 30, 10:51 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I'm curious about one thing: did Wade ever change his political
> > opinions significantly? I recall that back in the 1950s he was one of
> > the most gullibly pro-Soviet of Western masters, seeming to get his
> > opinions straight out of Pravda. Did disillusionment finally sink
> > in?

> A more fullsome tribute to the life and times of Bob Wade has now been
> put up by Mark Crowther at TWIC, and adds to the tributes already
> athttp://www.chesscenter.com/twic/bobwade.html

> His political opinions circa 1950 were almost certainly to the Right
> of Laski ... Bob was a socialist,

The TWIC page you cite indicates he was a bit further left:

"The fact that he never got a daily column in a major newspaper is a
real shame as he was the source of much of the material to other
journalists at that time. People have said that his politics (he was a
communist) probably cost him in this area."

> and
> has approximately the same orientation as our own Bernie Sanders. 3/4
> of the major democracies in Western Europe are socialist.

One can be socialist without being pro-Soviet. My impression of Wade
was that he was, at least for a time, rather pro-Soviet. I wondered if
he ever changed his mind on that score.
Then again, it appears he did not always toe a party line. For
example, the Telegraph says:

"[H]e crossed swords with the Soviets over his support for players
who had fallen out of favour with the Communist authorities ..."

> While I do not think it particularly appropriate to continue this
> conversation, in this thread at this time - it should be noted that
> Bob Wade was honoured by the Queen for his services to the cultural
> life of his country.

Quite rightly so. In bringing up Wade's political views I am in no
way trying to slight him. He had a perfect right to his opinions. But
I'm interested in the cases of pro-Soviet Westerners who eventually
had to face facts and abandon their cherished illusions about the
USSR. I wondered if and how Wade handled that problem.

Date: 01 Dec 2008 05:45:55
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Nov 30, 10:51=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 29, 1:02=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > It is with extreme sadness that I have to report that Bob Wade,
> > International Master, arbiter, journalist, coach, organiser, writer,
> > chess archivist, friend to chess and friend to me, died 29th November
> > 2008 at 3am from pneumonia, he had been in the Elisabeth Hospital in
> > Woolwich for three days for complications from a common cold.
>
> > Robert Graham Wade was born April 10th 1921 in Dunedin, New Zealand
> > and died in London, England Saturday 29th November 2008.
>
> > Bob's influence on the game covered every area imaginable, and made
> > him a true giant of the game. His kindness and generosity will stay
> > with all those who knew him.
>
> > Playing career
>
> > His playing career was that of a solid middle ranking professional. He
> > was three time New Zealand Champion, twice British Champion, played in
> > seven Olympiads and one Interzonal (see his Wikipedia entryhttp://en.wi=
kipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wade_(chess_player) ) he also
> > played in a lot of tournaments against the world's best, especially in
> > Eastern Europe and Cuba (playing in a number of Capablanca Memorial
> > tournaments). He regarded himself lucky to do so and bemoaned the fact
> > that the top players don't play against a wider range of opponents.
> > His last major event was the Staunton Memorial in London in July where
> > he was really set up to lose, even a single draw would have left him
> > with a higher rating, he fought gamely it has to be said. A far better
> > result was achieved in 2006 in the Queenstown Chess Classic where he
> > scored 6/10 including a draw against the winner Murray Chandler. He
> > played a final game for the Athenium Chess Club in recent weeks.
>
> > It is not really in his playing results however that his influence
> > lies. He used to have the reputation of playing maverick openings. He
> > lived to see a number of these "Wade Variations" make it to use and
> > respectability at the very highest level.
>
> > Source: TWIC
>
> =A0 Sad to hear of his death, Phil; thank you for the report. I have
> enjoyed what I've seen of Wade's writings, such as his book (co-
> written with William Winter) on the 1951 Botvinnik-Bronstein match. He
> was not near the top ranks as a player, his 5-year peak being only
> around Elo 2380, but he did a lot for the game, in all the various
> ways you have mentioned above. Chess can always use more like him.
> =A0 I'm curious about one thing: did Wade ever change his political
> opinions significantly? I recall that back in the 1950s he was one of
> the most gullibly pro-Soviet of Western masters, seeming to get his
> opinions straight out of Pravda. Did disillusionment finally sink
> in?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A more fullsome tribute to the life and times of Bob Wade has now been
put up by Mark Crowther at TWIC, and adds to the tributes already at
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/bobwade.html

Of other details of Bob's life, I never knew him personally - though
knew of him via Peter Clarke, and more recently by Ray Keene.

His political opinions circa 1950 were almost certainly to the Right
of Laski, who was acting for the government in the late 40's. Eric
Blair advised Arthur Koestler not to trust Laski at all. Prime
Minister Harold Wilson was a socialist. Not until the 60's did people
get a view of what was going on in the USSR. Bob was a socialist, and
has approximately the same orientation as our own Bernie Sanders. 3/4
of the major democracies in Western Europe are socialist.

While I do not think it particularly appropriate to continue this
conversation, in this thread at this time - it should be noted that
Bob Wade was honoured by the Queen for his services to the cultural
life of his country.

In nocte consilium

Phil Innes

Date: 30 Nov 2008 07:51:46
From:
Subject: Re: Bob Wade

On Nov 29, 1:02=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> It is with extreme sadness that I have to report that Bob Wade,
> International Master, arbiter, journalist, coach, organiser, writer,
> chess archivist, friend to chess and friend to me, died 29th November
> 2008 at 3am from pneumonia, he had been in the Elisabeth Hospital in
> Woolwich for three days for complications from a common cold.
>
> Robert Graham Wade was born April 10th 1921 in Dunedin, New Zealand
> and died in London, England Saturday 29th November 2008.
>
> Bob's influence on the game covered every area imaginable, and made
> him a true giant of the game. His kindness and generosity will stay
> with all those who knew him.
>
> Playing career
>
> His playing career was that of a solid middle ranking professional. He
> was three time New Zealand Champion, twice British Champion, played in
> seven Olympiads and one Interzonal (see his Wikipedia entryhttp://en.wiki=
pedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wade_(chess_player) ) he also
> played in a lot of tournaments against the world's best, especially in
> Eastern Europe and Cuba (playing in a number of Capablanca Memorial
> tournaments). He regarded himself lucky to do so and bemoaned the fact
> that the top players don't play against a wider range of opponents.
> His last major event was the Staunton Memorial in London in July where
> he was really set up to lose, even a single draw would have left him
> with a higher rating, he fought gamely it has to be said. A far better
> result was achieved in 2006 in the Queenstown Chess Classic where he
> scored 6/10 including a draw against the winner Murray Chandler. He
> played a final game for the Athenium Chess Club in recent weeks.
>
> It is not really in his playing results however that his influence
> lies. He used to have the reputation of playing maverick openings. He
> lived to see a number of these "Wade Variations" make it to use and
> respectability at the very highest level.
>
> Source: TWIC

Sad to hear of his death, Phil; thank you for the report. I have
enjoyed what I've seen of Wade's writings, such as his book (co-
written with William Winter) on the 1951 Botvinnik-Bronstein match. He
was not near the top ranks as a player, his 5-year peak being only
around Elo 2380, but he did a lot for the game, in all the various
ways you have mentioned above. Chess can always use more like him.
I'm curious about one thing: did Wade ever change his political
opinions significantly? I recall that back in the 1950s he was one of
the most gullibly pro-Soviet of Western masters, seeming to get his
opinions straight out of Pravda. Did disillusionment finally sink
in?