Main
Date: 31 May 2008 09:32:21
From: samsloan
Subject: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice
Things are really heating up and it is going to be interesting as Ed
Labate and Ed Trice threaten each other.

I do not know either of them so I have no opinion as to who is right,
but Ed Labate has been involved in chess both as a book seller and as
a tournament organizer for at least 40 years whereas Ed Trice is a
recently arrived huxter, so I am inclined to believe that Ed Labate is
right and Ed Trice is a fraud.

On the other hand, Ed Labate filed a frivolous lawsuit against the
USCF around 25 years ago for refusing to list his tournaments in the
TLA section of Chess Life and was paid a settlement of $30,000. Ed
Trice gets favorable mention for revealing that Rob "The Robber"
Mitchell was trying to scam him for $35,000. Ed Trice has received a
lot of favorable publicity on the Polgar websites.

Read the following websites and formulate your own opinion:


The Gothic Chess Federation
re: Ed Labate
http://www.gothicchess.com/labate.html

Labate Chess
re: Ed Trice
http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html

Dear Ed Trice may be in a lot of trouble.

As "My 61 Memorable Games" by Bobby Fischer goes from a mystery to a
hoax ...

US Chess Federation
My 61 Memorable Games: A Mystery
by GM Larry Evans
February 1, 2008
http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8175/431

US Chess Federation
My 61 Memorable Games: A Hoax
by GM Larry Evans
April 10, 2008
http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8333/446

Blame is casted and scapegoats are sought (including a criminal
complaint with the FBI) ...

Chess Ninja
Daily Dirt
Fischer Book
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/12/fischer_book_for_real.htm

Fischer's My 61 Memorable Games
Google Groups
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_thread/thread/18cd6eed1a0b0851/50d6ec973d0f119f?lnk=raot#50d6ec973d0f119f

Positions are declared, reputations are staked and a 10-count libel
lawsuit is filed ...

The Gothic Chess Forum
re: Ed Labate
page 1
http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?s=779ceae97b7a8c0b046a7c6613362bcf&showtopic=422&st=0
page 2
http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?s=71c84948aacc5ba3afae879d554dedc6&showtopic=422&st=15




 
Date: 16 Sep 2008 17:54:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Phil the fool raves again

Chess One wrote:

> Having [almost] wrestled Taylor Kingston to the ground recently, in order to
> get him to talk chess, rather than refer to personalities, [his and
> Kasparov's, in that order], all that is lacking is attention to content
> rather than personalities.
>
> I know it's all about personality is some regions, but I don't think
> personalities of commentators actually preceed anyone's interest in chess.
> But who knows? If that's all you know, I guess that's all you do?


Note to Dr. IMnes, the wannabe chess
guy: the first step in your program to
promote "talking chess, not personalities"
would be for you, the sole founder of the
movement, to do so.


-- help bot

President, Dr. IMnes Talks Chess fan club



 
Date: 16 Sep 2008 11:29:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Phil the fool raves again
On Sep 16, 12:55=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:

> The CJA stuff is interesting. However, having Daren Dillinger write
> about "character of those who volunteer for leadership positions" is
> like Sam Sloan criticizing Lehman Brothers.


For those who don't know, Lehman Brothers
refers to a large company which has just filed
bankruptcy, having knuckled under due to the
(over)use of leverage during the Greenspan
Housing Bubble, which has now "popped".

Mr. Sloan and I made quite a bit of money
on the way down, first betting that the stock
would not go up, then later betting on its
decline. As I write this, I have puts on for a
price of minus $110 per share, and if the
price had not stopped right at $0, I could've
been rich. Mr. Sloan expects to make his
fortune on the way back up, having bought
Jan 2010 calls at a strike price of + $110,
which offsets my risk using something
called "allocated diversification modeling",
which we paid Rob Mitchell $5,000 to
develop for us.


-- help bot




 
Date: 16 Sep 2008 06:07:36
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Phil the fool raves again
On Sep 16, 7:51=A0am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 7:22=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I know it's all about personality is some regions, but I don't think
> > personalities of commentators actually preceed anyone's interest in che=
ss.
> > But who knows? If that's all you know, I guess that's all you do?
>
> Saith the Keene-worshipper.

P Innes worships anyone who will treat him as if he were important. So
few people do.


  
Date: 16 Sep 2008 16:56:51
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Phil the fool raves again
The Historian wrote:
> On Sep 16, 7:51 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 7:22 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I know it's all about personality is some regions, but I don't think
>>> personalities of commentators actually preceed anyone's interest in chess.
>>> But who knows? If that's all you know, I guess that's all you do?
>> Saith the Keene-worshipper.
>
> P Innes worships anyone who will treat him as if he were important. So
> few people do.

So perhaps we should collectively treat him as a VIP and see what we can
get him to do for us?



   
Date: 16 Sep 2008 19:53:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Phil the fool raves again

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> The Historian wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 7:51 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sep 16, 7:22 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know it's all about personality is some regions, but I don't think
>>>> personalities of commentators actually preceed anyone's interest in
>>>> chess.
>>>> But who knows? If that's all you know, I guess that's all you do?
>>> Saith the Keene-worshipper.
>>
>> P Innes worships anyone who will treat him as if he were important. So
>> few people do.
>
> So perhaps we should collectively treat him as a VIP and see what we can
> get him to do for us?

MORE WHINE?

oo groovy! the Brain has come to organise the chaps again ! ;)))))

maybe he could talk more with DR RD who is always a scream,

and hob-nob with little neil, so he won't yap at group members (after all,
what could he envy?)

taylor's a cert, just don't ask him what the middle one was, Otto

and not forgetting deep-spinrad, he who announced before [?] knowing
what was in bill goichberg's secret e-mails - that it was nothing to resign
over

i forgot mike murray, whose own deepness surpasses ordinary understanding,
extraordinary too, in fact all understanding

help-bot is merely mercenary-negative
and he will play along, thinking its his game
and can be discarded later
when he still will ;(

same with ethics-john of the CAJ
since... well, no need to explain

but gosh! can 9 net-chicks be wrong?

i sometimes feel as though net-chicks think even their
chess ratings are cumulative if they add 'em together

let the vagueries begin!

chess itself being a topic too rigorous for group-9
to attend to for more than arf a post, init?

then its boy-bitchin in the basement

lovely stuff! and only public in america!

cordially! phil innes




    
Date: 16 Sep 2008 23:56:11
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Phil the fool raves again
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Sep 16, 7:51 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 16, 7:22 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know it's all about personality is some regions, but I don't think
>>>>> personalities of commentators actually preceed anyone's interest in
>>>>> chess.
>>>>> But who knows? If that's all you know, I guess that's all you do?
>>>> Saith the Keene-worshipper.
>>> P Innes worships anyone who will treat him as if he were important. So
>>> few people do.
>> So perhaps we should collectively treat him as a VIP and see what we can
>> get him to do for us?
>
> MORE WHINE?

Whine for you. Wine for us.
>
> oo groovy! the Brain has come to organise the chaps again ! ;)))))
>
> maybe he could talk more with DR RD who is always a scream,
>
> and hob-nob with little neil, so he won't yap at group members (after all,
> what could he envy?)
>
> taylor's a cert, just don't ask him what the middle one was, Otto
>
> and not forgetting deep-spinrad, he who announced before [?] knowing
> what was in bill goichberg's secret e-mails - that it was nothing to resign
> over
>
> i forgot mike murray, whose own deepness surpasses ordinary understanding,
> extraordinary too, in fact all understanding
>
> help-bot is merely mercenary-negative
> and he will play along, thinking its his game
> and can be discarded later
> when he still will ;(
>
> same with ethics-john of the CAJ
> since... well, no need to explain
>
> but gosh! can 9 net-chicks be wrong?
>
> i sometimes feel as though net-chicks think even their
> chess ratings are cumulative if they add 'em together
>
> let the vagueries begin!
>
> chess itself being a topic too rigorous for group-9
> to attend to for more than arf a post, init?
>
> then its boy-bitchin in the basement
>
> lovely stuff! and only public in america!
>
> cordially! phil innes

Lots of people to drink wine with. Not many for you to whine with.
>
>


   
Date: 16 Sep 2008 12:06:46
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Phil the fool raves again
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:56:51 GMT, Brian Lafferty
<[email protected] > wrote:


>> P Innes worships anyone who will treat him as if he were important. So
>> few people do.

>So perhaps we should collectively treat him as a VIP and see what we can
>get him to do for us?

Would asking the fat kid with coke bottle glasses to pitch really help
the team? (Well, maybe if he's Rhyne Duren...)


 
Date: 16 Sep 2008 05:51:28
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Phil the fool raves again
On Sep 16, 7:22=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I know it's all about personality is some regions, but I don't think
> personalities of commentators actually preceed anyone's interest in chess=
.
> But who knows? If that's all you know, I guess that's all you do?

Saith the Keene-worshipper.


 
Date: 15 Sep 2008 21:55:46
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Phil the fool raves again
On Sep 15, 5:32=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]m..=
.
> > Can't we get this thread back to its original topic??
>
> > by all means, fresh off the press - enjoy!
>
> >http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/GettingStraightfromtheGetGo.htm
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Wasn't the original topic of this thread something about Ed Labate and
> Ed Trice? The CJA stuff crept in when poor little Phil got miffed that
> he wasn't allowed to hang with the cool kids.

The CJA stuff is interesting. However, having Daren Dillinger write
about "character of those who volunteer for leadership positions" is
like Sam Sloan criticizing Lehman Brothers.


 
Date: 15 Sep 2008 15:32:03
From:
Subject: Phil the fool raves again


Chess One wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]m...
> Can't we get this thread back to its original topic??
>
>
> by all means, fresh off the press - enjoy!
>
> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/GettingStraightfromtheGetGo.htm
>
>
> Phil Innes


Wasn't the original topic of this thread something about Ed Labate and
Ed Trice? The CJA stuff crept in when poor little Phil got miffed that
he wasn't allowed to hang with the cool kids.


  
Date: 16 Sep 2008 08:22:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Phil the fool raves again
Ace journalist John somebody or other, a CJA hack, asks a question about a
thread titled "CJA, decline and denial". You read it here folks!

But ace journalist John somebody is good enough to actually //demonstrate//
good-ol' boy CJA tactics, or is it intelligence? And why this USCF-feeder
mechanism has brought us all so very low... The Chessville link below is
written by a CJA insider, an officer, no less!

Having [almost] wrestled Taylor Kingston to the ground recently, in order to
get him to talk chess, rather than refer to personalities, [his and
Kasparov's, in that order], all that is lacking is attention to content
rather than personalities.

I know it's all about personality is some regions, but I don't think
personalities of commentators actually preceed anyone's interest in chess.
But who knows? If that's all you know, I guess that's all you do?

Phil Innes

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]m...
>> Can't we get this thread back to its original topic??
>>
>>
>> by all means, fresh off the press - enjoy!
>>
>> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/GettingStraightfromtheGetGo.htm
>>
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
>
> Wasn't the original topic of this thread something about Ed Labate and
> Ed Trice? The CJA stuff crept in when poor little Phil got miffed that
> he wasn't allowed to hang with the cool kids.




 
Date: 14 Sep 2008 12:32:18
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile
Can't we get this thread back to its original topic??

On Jul 17, 7:23=A0am, Edward Labate <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ed Trice, you can=92t even see how foolish you look. =A0You claim 4000+
> player tournaments, yet you can=92t even show an organized event with
> six boards in an organized tournament setting. =A0Where are the clocks,
> where are the scoresheets? =A0Where are the rows and rows and rows of
> tables, chairs and actual games in progress????
> You=92re in one of the picture, another one of your pictures has kids on
> the floor playing a chess variant, and another picture is clearly a
> skittles room where people are just playing it for fun. =A0 =A0Here=92s s=
ome
> picture of how actual attended events look like, not imaginary:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Chess_tourna...
>
> http://www.boardlink.bz/Obj/B000309001/Images/AsianYouthInd0China.JPG
>
> http://www.greenvillechessclub.org/images/Tournament%20room%20of%20at...
>
> http://hwebbjr.typepad.com/openloops/DSCF0490_small.jpg
>
> http://www.boardlink.bz/Obj/B000309001/Images/NR2005hallview.JPG
>
> Additionally, where=92s the schedule for 2008 tournaments??? =A0When is
> the NEXT gothic chess tournament???
>
> =93On Jul 16, 9:19 am, Ed Trice <[email protected]:
> Links to some tournaments that people say never happened
> =93The 2002 college scholarship event was just for 1 year's tuition. We
> had 895 participants. Here=92s a panoramic view of this event.=94http://w=
ww.gothicchess.com/tournaments/sn3.
>
> =93In 2003 we had 1640. =A0Here=92s a panoramic view of this event:=94htt=
p://www.gothicchess.com/tournaments/conor.
>
> =93In 2004, over 2000. Here=92s a panoramic view of this event.=94http://=
www.gothicchess.com/tournaments/supernats.
>
> In 2005 we offered 2 years' tuition, and it was a fiasco, with over
> 4000 registrations, maybe 60% of the registrations coming within 1
> month of the event, and people showing up "at the door" even though
> radio ads were mentioning the tournament was, in fact, closed. =A0Here=92=
s
> a panoramic view of this event.=94http://www.gothicchess.com/tournaments/=
dave_bryan.http://www.gothicchess.com/tournaments/ed_dave.
>
> I suppose you will all claim they are CGI, especially
> Labate, you're a lunatic. You are insane. There, save that. Ed Trice=94
>
> Yep, you showed me Ed Trice!! =A0I=92m the LOONEY!!



  
Date: 15 Sep 2008 14:25:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
Can't we get this thread back to its original topic??


by all means, fresh off the press - enjoy!

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/GettingStraightfromtheGetGo.htm


Phil Innes




 
Date: 04 Aug 2008 09:20:08
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice
On Aug 4, 8:43=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:19 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 4:38 am, Edward Labate <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 6, 1:24 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > David,
>
> > > =A0I did not 'just show up' someone sent me an unwanted email with th=
e
> > > link here enclosed. That person visited the Gothic Chess blog (http:/=
/
> > > gothicchess.blogspot.com/) and got our emails from there I suppose.
> > > I've been on that blog for months, and I don't quite appreciate the
> > > spammer bothering me for this pointless circular debate.
>
> > > Was good for a few laughs as I see how offbeat and way off base most
> > > of you are. Just when I think working graveyard shift in my old age i=
s
> > > tough, I realize I don't have it nearly as bad as the pathetic people
> > > wrapped up in this crap who actually believe they are championing a
> > > cause.
>
> > > "It's all made up by Labate, isn't it obvious? It's got you all
> > > visiting his site, don't it?"
>
> > > VINTAGE TRICE ALIAS!! =A0Somebody that has never posted on this site
> > > decides to 'champion' Ed Trice's cause because he received an email
> > > out of the blue, who just happens to be an innocent night watchman
> > > with access to various computers, and numerous search abilities, and
> > > now he's CIA material!
>
> > > Ed Trice's numerous lies are believable without any supporting
> > > documentation, but Edward Labate provides mountains of evidence,
> > > links, emails, etc., and yet, =A0he's made it all up, eh???
>
> > > 1] Trice actually stated on chessgames.com: =A0"Ed Trice: Not only is
> > > that old news, he is doing much better. Furthermore, his new book is
> > > being printed right now. A new email address can reach the man in
> > > direct contact with him regarding resellers who wish to order it. Thi=
s
> > > is for people who will order 100 or more copies of it at a time for
> > > resale. If some of you want to "ask the man" anything, coming directl=
y
> > > from him himself, get on this list. Maybe if you order 10 books at a
> > > discount and get 9 other people to do the same, one of you can collec=
t
> > > the order money and make a reseller purchase of 100 books. For all
> > > serious inquires, send an email to [email protected] and I will
> > > help move this along. NOTE: All I did was hook Fischer up with a
> > > reliable printer, I don't have the book, I don't have access to the
> > > book, I just helped him out when everyone else turned their backs on
> > > him."
>
> > > 2] Trice claims he has an AOL letter, which he doesn't post, yet AOL
> > > doesn't issue letters without a subpoena from an ongoing litigation.
> > > "As I am sure you can appreciate, AOL takes online privacy very
> > > seriously. Please note that per the AOL Privacy Policy:
>
> > > Your AOL Member information, including the contents of your private
> > > online communications, may be accessed and disclosed in response to
> > > legal process (for example, a court order, search warrant or
> > > subpoena); in other circumstances in which AOL believes the AOL
> > > Service is being used in the commission of a crime; when we have a
> > > good faith belief that there is an emergency that poses a threat to
> > > the safety of you or another person; or when necessary either to
> > > protect the rights or property of AOL, or for us to render the servic=
e
> > > you have requested.
>
> > > Please review the AOL Privacy Policy and AOL Civil Subpoena Policy
> > > site for additional information."
>
> > > 3] He asks Frank Camaratta if he's interested in going in on a
> > > publishing venture:
>
> > > 4] He contacts Cathy Purdy from Bookmasters about publishing the
> > > Fischer book.
>
> > > 5] He shows the manuscript to Dan Heisman.
>
> > > 6] He CC Bruce Towell on the same emails that I get regarding the
> > > Fischer book, and he reports to Bruce that's he's going to Iceland fo=
r
> > > a photoshoot in July or August.
>
> > > 7] He posts on chessgames.com that has evidence that Fischer was
> > > involved with the book: =A0 =A0"This is Ed Trice of Gothic Chess---- =
I
> > > have alot of evidence which suggests that he was involved in this.
> > > Posted by: James at December 20, 2007 08:17"
>
> > > Ed Trice, you are one pathetic MOFO!!! =A0Any luck on locating Donald
> > > Trump's ATM card?????
>
> > > ALSO, MUST READING / Please forward as a warning and Public Service
> > > Announcement/PSA to all you know:http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.=
htmlRE:My61 Memorable Games
> > > Hoaxhttp://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.htmlRE:'PHILLYPHRAUD', Ed Tri=
ce/
> > > Gothic Chesshttp://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlmRE:Convicte=
dFelon/
> > > Pedophile, Robert Snyder
>
> > Has Trice responded to the summons?
>
> Thank you, Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell, for bringing this much-
> wandering discussion back to its original topic.
>
> Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are welcome Spammy Sloan. Somebody had to do it.

Now... does anyone know where the lawsuit stands with Trice?


 
Date: 04 Aug 2008 06:43:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice
On Aug 3, 10:19 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 4:38 am, Edward Labate <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 1:24 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > David,
>
> > I did not 'just show up' someone sent me an unwanted email with the
> > link here enclosed. That person visited the Gothic Chess blog (http://
> > gothicchess.blogspot.com/) and got our emails from there I suppose.
> > I've been on that blog for months, and I don't quite appreciate the
> > spammer bothering me for this pointless circular debate.
>
> > Was good for a few laughs as I see how offbeat and way off base most
> > of you are. Just when I think working graveyard shift in my old age is
> > tough, I realize I don't have it nearly as bad as the pathetic people
> > wrapped up in this crap who actually believe they are championing a
> > cause.
>
> > "It's all made up by Labate, isn't it obvious? It's got you all
> > visiting his site, don't it?"
>
> > VINTAGE TRICE ALIAS!! Somebody that has never posted on this site
> > decides to 'champion' Ed Trice's cause because he received an email
> > out of the blue, who just happens to be an innocent night watchman
> > with access to various computers, and numerous search abilities, and
> > now he's CIA material!
>
> > Ed Trice's numerous lies are believable without any supporting
> > documentation, but Edward Labate provides mountains of evidence,
> > links, emails, etc., and yet, he's made it all up, eh???
>
> > 1] Trice actually stated on chessgames.com: "Ed Trice: Not only is
> > that old news, he is doing much better. Furthermore, his new book is
> > being printed right now. A new email address can reach the man in
> > direct contact with him regarding resellers who wish to order it. This
> > is for people who will order 100 or more copies of it at a time for
> > resale. If some of you want to "ask the man" anything, coming directly
> > from him himself, get on this list. Maybe if you order 10 books at a
> > discount and get 9 other people to do the same, one of you can collect
> > the order money and make a reseller purchase of 100 books. For all
> > serious inquires, send an email to [email protected] and I will
> > help move this along. NOTE: All I did was hook Fischer up with a
> > reliable printer, I don't have the book, I don't have access to the
> > book, I just helped him out when everyone else turned their backs on
> > him."
>
> > 2] Trice claims he has an AOL letter, which he doesn't post, yet AOL
> > doesn't issue letters without a subpoena from an ongoing litigation.
> > "As I am sure you can appreciate, AOL takes online privacy very
> > seriously. Please note that per the AOL Privacy Policy:
>
> > Your AOL Member information, including the contents of your private
> > online communications, may be accessed and disclosed in response to
> > legal process (for example, a court order, search warrant or
> > subpoena); in other circumstances in which AOL believes the AOL
> > Service is being used in the commission of a crime; when we have a
> > good faith belief that there is an emergency that poses a threat to
> > the safety of you or another person; or when necessary either to
> > protect the rights or property of AOL, or for us to render the service
> > you have requested.
>
> > Please review the AOL Privacy Policy and AOL Civil Subpoena Policy
> > site for additional information."
>
> > 3] He asks Frank Camaratta if he's interested in going in on a
> > publishing venture:
>
> > 4] He contacts Cathy Purdy from Bookmasters about publishing the
> > Fischer book.
>
> > 5] He shows the manuscript to Dan Heisman.
>
> > 6] He CC Bruce Towell on the same emails that I get regarding the
> > Fischer book, and he reports to Bruce that's he's going to Iceland for
> > a photoshoot in July or August.
>
> > 7] He posts on chessgames.com that has evidence that Fischer was
> > involved with the book: "This is Ed Trice of Gothic Chess---- I
> > have alot of evidence which suggests that he was involved in this.
> > Posted by: James at December 20, 2007 08:17"
>
> > Ed Trice, you are one pathetic MOFO!!! Any luck on locating Donald
> > Trump's ATM card?????
>
> > ALSO, MUST READING / Please forward as a warning and Public Service
> > Announcement/PSA to all you know:http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.htmlRE:My 61 Memorable Games
> > Hoaxhttp://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.htmlRE:'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed Trice/
> > Gothic Chesshttp://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlmRE:Convicted Felon/
> > Pedophile, Robert Snyder
>
> Has Trice responded to the summons?

Thank you, Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell, for bringing this much-
wandering discussion back to its original topic.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 03 Aug 2008 08:19:02
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice
On Jun 6, 4:38=A0am, Edward Labate <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 1:24 am, [email protected] wrote:
> David,
>
> =A0I did not 'just show up' someone sent me an unwanted email with the
> link here enclosed. That person visited the Gothic Chess blog (http://
> gothicchess.blogspot.com/) and got our emails from there I suppose.
> I've been on that blog for months, and I don't quite appreciate the
> spammer bothering me for this pointless circular debate.
>
> Was good for a few laughs as I see how offbeat and way off base most
> of you are. Just when I think working graveyard shift in my old age is
> tough, I realize I don't have it nearly as bad as the pathetic people
> wrapped up in this crap who actually believe they are championing a
> cause.
>
> "It's all made up by Labate, isn't it obvious? It's got you all
> visiting his site, don't it?"
>
> VINTAGE TRICE ALIAS!! =A0Somebody that has never posted on this site
> decides to 'champion' Ed Trice's cause because he received an email
> out of the blue, who just happens to be an innocent night watchman
> with access to various computers, and numerous search abilities, and
> now he's CIA material!
>
> Ed Trice's numerous lies are believable without any supporting
> documentation, but Edward Labate provides mountains of evidence,
> links, emails, etc., and yet, =A0he's made it all up, eh???
>
> 1] Trice actually stated on chessgames.com: =A0"Ed Trice: Not only is
> that old news, he is doing much better. Furthermore, his new book is
> being printed right now. A new email address can reach the man in
> direct contact with him regarding resellers who wish to order it. This
> is for people who will order 100 or more copies of it at a time for
> resale. If some of you want to "ask the man" anything, coming directly
> from him himself, get on this list. Maybe if you order 10 books at a
> discount and get 9 other people to do the same, one of you can collect
> the order money and make a reseller purchase of 100 books. For all
> serious inquires, send an email to [email protected] and I will
> help move this along. NOTE: All I did was hook Fischer up with a
> reliable printer, I don't have the book, I don't have access to the
> book, I just helped him out when everyone else turned their backs on
> him."
>
> 2] Trice claims he has an AOL letter, which he doesn't post, yet AOL
> doesn't issue letters without a subpoena from an ongoing litigation.
> "As I am sure you can appreciate, AOL takes online privacy very
> seriously. Please note that per the AOL Privacy Policy:
>
> Your AOL Member information, including the contents of your private
> online communications, may be accessed and disclosed in response to
> legal process (for example, a court order, search warrant or
> subpoena); in other circumstances in which AOL believes the AOL
> Service is being used in the commission of a crime; when we have a
> good faith belief that there is an emergency that poses a threat to
> the safety of you or another person; or when necessary either to
> protect the rights or property of AOL, or for us to render the service
> you have requested.
>
> Please review the AOL Privacy Policy and AOL Civil Subpoena Policy
> site for additional information."
>
> 3] He asks Frank Camaratta if he's interested in going in on a
> publishing venture:
>
> 4] He contacts Cathy Purdy from Bookmasters about publishing the
> Fischer book.
>
> 5] He shows the manuscript to Dan Heisman.
>
> 6] He CC Bruce Towell on the same emails that I get regarding the
> Fischer book, and he reports to Bruce that's he's going to Iceland for
> a photoshoot in July or August.
>
> 7] He posts on chessgames.com that has evidence that Fischer was
> involved with the book: =A0 =A0"This is Ed Trice of Gothic Chess---- I
> have alot of evidence which suggests that he was involved in this.
> Posted by: James at December 20, 2007 08:17"
>
> Ed Trice, you are one pathetic MOFO!!! =A0Any luck on locating Donald
> Trump's ATM card?????
>
> ALSO, MUST READING / Please forward as a warning and Public Service
> Announcement/PSA to all you know:http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html=
RE: My 61 Memorable Games
> Hoaxhttp://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.htmlRE: 'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed Trice=
/
> Gothic Chesshttp://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlmRE: Convicted F=
elon/
> Pedophile, Robert Snyder

Has Trice responded to the summons?


 
Date: 01 Aug 2008 04:03:32
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice
On Jun 18, 8:10=A0am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 17, 3:35 pm, Edward Labate <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Rob <[email protected]> write:
>
> > "Looks as if you may become the owner of the Gothic Chess patent. Any
> > plans for it?"
>
> > Yeah...put it up on ebay with an opening bid of 1 cent, and a buy-it-
> > now of 2 cents... and hope I don't get sued for overstating it's
> > value!!!
>
> > Best Wishes,
> > Edward Labate
>
> Very nice. Or perhaps sell it for a bit more, and make a fitting
> memorium to Capa with the cash - whose idea was ripped off anyway.

A very good suggestion


 
Date: 31 Jul 2008 13:57:06
From: Rob
Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile
On Jul 18, 6:59=A0pm, Edward Labate <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mr. Strong,
>
> I was recently copied on an email that Ed Trice sent to the USCF in
> which he said that he had won a slander/libel lawsuit against you and
> that you received a "hard blow" by the justice system.
>
> Is this true?!? =A0And if so, can you give me the dates and case number
> please?
>
> Thank you in advance,
>
> Best Wishes!
>
> Edward Labate
> [email protected]
>
> ALSO, MUST READING / Please forward as a warning and Public Service
> Announcement/PSA to all you know:http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html
> RE: My 61 Memorable Games SCAM=85'PHILLY PHRAUD' Ed Trice scamming a
> dying Bobby Fischerhttp://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html
> RE: =91Most Hated Man In Chess=92, Ed Trice scamming a dying Bobby Fische=
rhttp://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.html
> RE: Convicted Felon/Pedophile, Robert Snyder

When does the lawsuit go to court?


 
Date: 23 Jul 2008 11:16:56
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF
help bot wrote:

> What does Mr. Sloan's slip-up tell us about
> his feelings toward the above-listed board
> members? The poor chap misses the mark
> so often it is hard to tell a Freudian slip from
> a meaningless blunder; but then he will
> sometimes turn around and spit out an
> observation worthy of the great Confucious,
> such as this: I CONFUCIUS AM A TRUE GREAT & WOULD PREFER MY NAME NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH MODERN DAY IDIOCY SUCH AS FOUND HERE: http://www.troutman.org/humor/confucious.html..

t.





> "The comments by Phil Innes
> are so ridiculous I see no point in dignifying
> them with a response". (Well, merely
> responding does not in itself lend dignity,
> but the intended meaning rings true in an
> almost universal way.)
>
> It would be hard to imagine people getting
> so confused over what BF said about the
> events of 9/11, but now there is no need for
> imagination; folks don't seem to recall much
> of anything correctly, and must now rely
> upon the Louis Blair time machine to get
> even a glimpse of the facts... .
>
> The fact is, Mr. Fischer talked about what
> he called "a Seven Days in May scenario";
> he prattled on about sending folks back to
> Europe and Africa; the Twin Towers were
> nothing to him, yet Mr. Sloan gets himself
> in a fix thinking about exactly when the
> towers fell relative to BF's infamous radio
> chat on the same day. In fact, a lot of
> Nor-easterners get hung up on just the
> comments that applied to their locale,
> more-or-less ignoring the broader issues.
>
> I've yet to see the movie to which BF
> referred, but I've read a bit about it; it was
> not about New York (and in fact, BF had
> long since moved to the other coast and
> had issues with the Pasadena, California
> police department). Mr. Fischer was
> quick to point out that the USA had
> supported Israel, which in turn had
> (according to BF) done terrible things to
> Palestine-- not to mention all our other
> crimes. Well, BF seemed to have missed
> that we Americans cannot just give the
> land we "stole" from the Indians back,
> because in the process "we" killed most
> of them off; raising the dead is beyond
> even the power of our mighty government
> (else they would undoubtedly revive BF
> and force him to pay his back taxes).
>
> -- help bot


 
Date: 22 Jul 2008 16:02:14
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Jul 21, 11:51=A0pm, <[email protected] >
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.116.133) wrote:
7 ... Sam Sloan is correct that Bobby was wrongly
7 deprived of USCF membership.
7 ...

_
"Bobby Fischer requested in the mid 1970's that
the USCF drop him from their records, as he no
longer wanted to receive 'Chess Lies'. As a result,
he was never issued a USCF ID and has never
been on the USCF's computerized records." - Mike
Nolan (24 Jan 2005 20:10:45 GMT)
_
"[']As far as the US Chess Federation goes, I have
nothing to do with them, I consider them to be a
pro-Soviet, criminal organization, terrible people. I
would like... I would appreciate it if all of my fans
cancelled their subscriptions to their horrible
magazine Chess Life - I call it Chess Lies - and
withdrew from the membership of this organization.
I haven't been a member of this organization for, I
don't know, maybe for about 17 years or something.
I have a strict practice not to open Chess Life,
since 1976 I haven't looked, haven't touched it. I
see the cover, that's it, I never open it. Also, the
US Chess Federation even now, I told them I'm not
a member of the organization and I have nothing to
do with them. Until recently, they were still using
my name, saying I'm a member, trying to solicit
memberships using my name. This is the kind of
people they are.[' - Fischer] --- From the transcript
of the third press conference, September 14, 1992,
as printed on pages 88-89 of No Regrets." - posted
by Neil Brennen (2002-09-28 22:20:33 PST)
_
No Regrets is a book by Yasser Seirawan.
_
martinak (Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:18 am) wrote:
7 ...
7 Let's recap the apparent historical sequence of
7 events:
7
7 1. Fischer resigned his membership in the 1970s
7 - probably before USCF ids were assigned. I
7 checked the USCF Golden Database from 2001
7 and he was not a member at that time.
7
7 2. In 1980 and 1991 the delegates passed: 17.
7 USCF Membership shall be awarded to
7 International Grandmasters, including Women
7 Grandmasters, when it is determined by the
7 Executive Director that a player is registering
7 with FIDE as an American player, or when an
7 American is awarded the title by FIDE. (1980,
7 1991)
7
7 Since he had already registered with FIDE and
7 was awarded his title long before 1980, these
7 would not cause him to be eligible. (Notice the
7 "is registering", not "has registered" and "is
7 awarded", not "was awarded"). In particular,
7 in 2006 he isn't being awarded the title or
7 registering as an American. So the current
7 ED would have no reason to award him a
7 membership.
7
7 3. In 2002, the policy board passed:
7 "The US Chess Federation informs Grandmaster
7 Robert J. Fischer that, because of his deplorable
7 public remarks in support of terrorist actions, his
7 right to membership in the United States Chess
7 Federation is cancelled. The Interim Executive
7 Director is asked to write to FIDE and to the US
7 Chess Trust about this action and about the
7 public remarks of Mr. Fischer, with a request
7 that those organizations join with the USCF in
7 condemnation of these remarks."
7
7 Since he was not a member, this did not take
7 away his membership. It just did not allow him
7 to become a member in the future.
7
7 4. The new motion rescinded the 2002 motion.
7 So, it does not make him a member - since he
7 was not one prior to the 2002 motion. It does
7 again allow him to become a member. So he
7 could pay for a membership. Or by the
7 delegates motion, if he "is registering" with
7 FIDE as USA, then he could receive a free
7 membership. However, to do that he would
7 presumably need to have FIDE deregister him
7 from the USA first and then re-register.
7
7 - Tom Martinak


 
Date: 22 Jul 2008 07:45:48
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
KANESTER' S VISION

>Parr's vision - in which there are no standards that
cannot be waived for the talented - has plagued the
USCF for a long time. > -- David Kane

Once again I do not hold to the view attributed to me
by David Kane. There are a guhzillion standards that
must not be waived for the talent, genial and
super-genial. Mind you, MUST not be waived as opposed
to the Kanester's weakminded "cannot" be waived.

By my standards the late Bobby Fischer was not
one with whom I would break bread -- a point made by
GM Larry Evans and yours truly in an award-winning
editorial we wrote in the Ft. Lauderdale News on whether
Fischer was a criminal for playing against Spassky in 1992.

In many ways Bobby put himself beyond the pale
of decent men, but that does not mean his membership
in the USCF should have been revoked.

Bobby murdered no one in real life, and he was
not a criminal. Foul talk is not the same as murder
most foul. If the USCF can entertain convicted felons
and murderers as members, it can accommodate Bobby.

Yours, Larry Parr

P.S. Also see THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans

PRISONER 99432 (page 184)

"A weird chapter in American chess ended in 2001 when Claude Bloodgood
died while serving a life sentence. Just five years earlier he was
briefly rated as the nation=92s number two player."

FREEBIES FOR FELONS (page 186)

"The USCF takes a loss on each prisoner who joins for only $12 a year,
a policy that sparked lively debate years ago in the quarterly
newsletter of the Chess Journalists of America (chessjournalism.org).
By now it appears that =91the ayes have it.=92...

"I figure it=92s less likely that convicts who study chess will create
mayhem after they
get out. Studies indicate that rates of recidivism are lower for
people who learn how to play in jail, but maybe chess just produces
smarter crooks. I still recall that the infamous bank robber Willie
Sutton was captured when the book found in his possession was How to
Think Ahead in Chess."










David Kane wrote:


  
Date: 22 Jul 2008 11:05:24
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...


> In many ways Bobby put himself beyond the pale
>of decent men, but that does not mean his membership
>in the USCF should have been revoked.

As usual, Parr understands nothing. Fischer is known to the
world solely because he played chess very well. When
he was celebrating the terrorist actions, that reflects poorly
on chessplayers as a group. (We, of course, know that
Fischer had been nuts for a long time, but there are
many who know the Fischer name, but not his mental
history)

What the USCF did was a symbolic gesture distancing
itself from his words. It had no practical impact (Fischer
not having been a member for decades) but simply
showed that he did not speak for the American chess
community.








   
Date: 22 Jul 2008 12:51:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:05:24 -0700, "David Kane"
<[email protected] > wrote:


><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]m...

>> In many ways Bobby put himself beyond the pale
>>of decent men, but that does not mean his membership
>>in the USCF should have been revoked.

>As usual, Parr understands nothing. Fischer is known to the
>world solely because he played chess very well. When
>he was celebrating the terrorist actions, that reflects poorly
>on chessplayers as a group. (We, of course, know that
>Fischer had been nuts for a long time, but there are
>many who know the Fischer name, but not his mental
>history)

I think anybody who listened to the broadcast, or read transcripts of
it would have to have been aware of his mental condition.

>What the USCF did was a symbolic gesture distancing
>itself from his words. It had no practical impact (Fischer
>not having been a member for decades) but simply
>showed that he did not speak for the American chess
>community.

It's kinda like a poetry society disowning Ezra Pound. Alternatives
were possible, such as a USCF statement deploring Fischer's remarks.


    
Date: 22 Jul 2008 13:41:37
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:05:24 -0700, "David Kane"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]m...
>
>>> In many ways Bobby put himself beyond the pale
>>>of decent men, but that does not mean his membership
>>>in the USCF should have been revoked.
>
>>As usual, Parr understands nothing. Fischer is known to the
>>world solely because he played chess very well. When
>>he was celebrating the terrorist actions, that reflects poorly
>>on chessplayers as a group. (We, of course, know that
>>Fischer had been nuts for a long time, but there are
>>many who know the Fischer name, but not his mental
>>history)
>
> I think anybody who listened to the broadcast, or read transcripts of
> it would have to have been aware of his mental condition.
>

Perhaps. But stories like this can spread without the full
context.

"Did you hear that chessplayer Bobby
Fischer applauded 9/11?"

Though the numbers may not be great in either case, I'd
be willing to bet that the number who heard something
like my sentence above far outnumbered those who
listened to the broadcast in full.

>>What the USCF did was a symbolic gesture distancing
>>itself from his words. It had no practical impact (Fischer
>>not having been a member for decades) but simply
>>showed that he did not speak for the American chess
>>community.
>
> It's kinda like a poetry society disowning Ezra Pound. Alternatives
> were possible, such as a USCF statement deploring Fischer's remarks.

No doubt you are right - I am not micro-analyzing every
aspect of the resolution. I am merely pointing ou that it was
encouraging to see action of any kind - given a chess world
full of apologists like Larry Parrs and his ilk. These people
argue that chessplayers (if they are good enough) are on a
higher plane - unconstrained by the rules made for the rest
of humanity.







     
Date: 24 Jul 2008 12:10:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Jul 24, 12:33 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:

> >>> Phil uses the phrase "abandonment of individual conscience" which str=
ikes a
> >>> chord with me.

If Mr. IMnes were not already married, perhaps
the two of you could... .


> >>> Since when is it the role of our USCF to make moral judgments about t=
he
> >>> political speech of people who are not even members of the organizati=
on?

A stupid question. Since when has the name
"Bobby Fischer" been synonymous with chess
in this country? Since when has the general
public heard about his rantings and ravings,
only to automatically associate them with
chess and chess players?


> >>> what gives them the right to pronounce the sentence of symbolically e=
xiling
> >>> this man who is not a member?

Um, are you suggesting here that the USCF
does not have the "right" to determine who may
be a member of (...wait for it...) the USCF?
[Chortle.]


> >>> What is next, are they going to wear white
> >>> sheets and burn crosses the next time they get excited? This is not =
the
> >>> kind of chess organization I want to join.

How about this: they have been known to
chop people's ratings in a misguided effort
to artificially protect Mr. Fischer's record
high (of 2825)! The culprit? Gata Kamsky,
back when he was just a wee tike.


> > It was sufficient for the USCF to issue a statement distancing itself f=
rom his
> > remarks.

Wrong. Folks who were reading here at the
time will recall that /nothing/ was enough; that
no matter how carefully it was explained that
BF was not saying the specific people who
died in, say, the Twin Towers, made him a
happy camper, but rather that what he was
saying was that the "evil" U.S. government
was finally getting its due comeuppance; but
nobody would listen. It is these dead-heads
who required a bashing over the head with
such things as a "ban", in order to make a
statement that the USCF strongly
disapproved of BF's comments. Of course,
there is no real ban, for BF could never
return to the USA without being seized by
the IRS, the Treasury Department, and of
course by the worldwide conspiracy of Jews
who were always "out to get him".

I just went back in time, changed the ban to
a mere "statement of disassociation" from the
USCF, and you guessed it, Larry Parr and his
crew started complaining that it was not
nearly enough; that the USCF was obligated
to take a stand. (It also happened that the
2002 World Open saw Phil Innes achieve his
first IM norm after a freak loss to him by
Gary Kasparov, who was attacked in mid-
game by a huge, flying Oscar Meyer Weiner.
GK dropped his Queen on the wrong square,
and was distracted just long enough for Mr.
Innes to capture it before it could be shifted
to another square. Quite a struggle-- 197
moves in all, but PI ultimately prevailed in a
KQQQQQ vs. KRRBBNN ending by playing
random spite checks until GK resigned out
of frustration, saying he had better things to
do than continue holding the draw.)


> >> Where you get your idea that chess organizations
> >> exist to provide a haven for genocide advocates
> >> is a mystery.
>
> > I never said this. Why did you?

My guess is that he is /against/ genocide,
for some (unspecified) reason or other. But
did BF really advocate genocide, or was he
suggesting that the evil invaders go or be
sent back from whence they came? Oh,
wait-- I think he did mention imprisoning
Jews (or maybe worse).


> > I raised the subject of morality because of statements like yours. Sele=
ctive
> > application of moral judgment while turning a blind eye to other far mo=
re
> > serious moral issues is not a confidence building practice.

More important than genocide? Ah, this
must be about an alien invasion, where the
future of life on Earth is threatened.


> To me, you are simply confused. To equate speaking out against
> those applauding terrorism with the Ku Klax Klan is just loopy.

Klux; it's the Ku Klux Klan. If a shotgun
"clacks" rather than "clucks", it needs
oiling. I recently watched In the Heat of
the Night. You know, it wasn't all that
long ago that it was what we now call
"politically correct" to be a racist pig like
Archie Bunker.


> > This also applies to the USCF and its punishment of Fischer. Now that =
they
> > have decided to become judge's of moral behavior, what are they going t=
o do
> > about all the other cases of immoral behavior of people in the chess wo=
rld?
> > Will they set up a system of tribunals to judge these cases?

The notorious "ethics committee"?


> > People that want to paint things as completely black and white often pu=
zzle
> > me. Consider the following:
>
> > "One may dislike Hitler=92s system and yet admire his patriotic achieve=
ment. If
> > our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitab=
le to
> > restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.=94=
--
> > Winston Churchill, Sept 1937

> > Does such a statement change your opinion of Hitler, or of Churchill?

It makes Mr. Churchill seem a dolt. The
"champion" got his country bombed into
rubble, many of his countrymen killed, the
rest despised.


> > How about the heroics of the carpet bombing of Tokyo in WWII?
>
> > =93We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that =
night of
> > March 9-10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.=94 =
--
> > General Curtis LeMay
>
> > Was this a war crime? Was it at least of sufficient importance to meri=
t
> > investigation at the Nuremberg trials?

The decision to annihilate civilians is more
the issue here, than any one execution of
that policy, however "successful". What we
learn is the pretense of moral superiority is
laughable; that war-time propaganda is far
more than a mere tool-- it reflects the real
attitudes of those in power, those who make
such decisions.


> > We live in a country that turns a blind eye on many things. The victor=
s write
> > the histories. Who are the victors? Who controls our media and our
> > government representatives? Follow the money laddie...

Money talks. (Mine says "goodbye!")


> History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
> chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
> of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
> obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
> Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
> felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.

You might be thinking of Judit Polgar, not
his actual wife, Susan. The three girls were
trained from an early age, and I wonder if
the term "genius" is appropriate in such
cases where there is heavy training, which
nets results; especially professional chess
players training others to become like them.

Genius seems to suggest effortless
mastery, granted by the whims of the gods.
Sort of a level of understanding far beyond
one's training and preparations. One
famous quote has the then highest-rated
chess player of all time (as we now know)
saying that he had only known *one* such
player: Jose Capablanca. That seems to
cut out famous players like Mr. Steinitz,
Mr. Tartakower, Mr. Tarrasch, Mr. Marshall
and so forth, so how can anyone possibly
/include/ Susan Polgar?


-- help bot


      
Date: 25 Jul 2008 16:00:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 24, 12:33 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:

> >>> Phil uses the phrase "abandonment of individual conscience" which
> >>> strikes a
> >>> chord with me.

If Mr. IMnes were not already married, perhaps
the two of you could... .

**Could what? What is Kennedy's mind that he is shy to express? Agree with
each other? Or does it seem like a sexual thing for him which is dependent
on agreement? Kennedy often declares those who agree to be likely in love...
<pfft! > or in some conspiracy group. Yet [lol] how should David Kane and I
be in any group, except to concur now and again?

> >>> Since when is it the role of our USCF to make moral judgments about
> >>> the
> >>> political speech of people who are not even members of the
> >>> organization?

A stupid question. Since when has the name
"Bobby Fischer" been synonymous with chess
in this country?

**Kennedy changes the subject from Fischer to USCF. The original writer's
comments do not mention politics at all, instead he speaks of the
constitutional rights of individuals to their free expression of their
conscience.

Since when has the general
public heard about his rantings and ravings,
only to automatically associate them with
chess and chess players?

**And thence to what is polular, not what is established as constitutional
right, expressly to protect what is not popular. The Constitution does not
address what is merely popular - it is indifferent to fad - and speaks of
universal rights of man.

> >>> what gives them the right to pronounce the sentence of symbolically
> >>> exiling
> >>> this man who is not a member?

Um, are you suggesting here that the USCF
does not have the "right" to determine who may
be a member of (...wait for it...) the USCF?
[Chortle.]

**I think the case is exactly opposite the one proposed: above; that
individuals have the right not to belong to USCF. I don't remember the
Constitution granting any rights to corporations to determine or decide
anything whatever!

> >>> What is next, are they going to wear white
> >>> sheets and burn crosses the next time they get excited? This is not
> >>> the
> >>> kind of chess organization I want to join.

How about this: they have been known to
chop people's ratings in a misguided effort
to artificially protect Mr. Fischer's record
high (of 2825)! The culprit? Gata Kamsky,
back when he was just a wee tike.

**And here we descend to another level of discussion - nothing to do with
the right of Fischer not to be associated with USCF, which was his plain
wish, but USCF's motivation for brown-nosing to Fishcer... hence their
actions, &c

Phil Innes

----------

> > It was sufficient for the USCF to issue a statement distancing itself
> > from his
> > remarks.

Wrong. Folks who were reading here at the
time will recall that /nothing/ was enough; that
no matter how carefully it was explained that
BF was not saying the specific people who
died in, say, the Twin Towers, made him a
happy camper, but rather that what he was
saying was that the "evil" U.S. government
was finally getting its due comeuppance; but
nobody would listen. It is these dead-heads
who required a bashing over the head with
such things as a "ban", in order to make a
statement that the USCF strongly
disapproved of BF's comments. Of course,
there is no real ban, for BF could never
return to the USA without being seized by
the IRS, the Treasury Department, and of
course by the worldwide conspiracy of Jews
who were always "out to get him".

I just went back in time, changed the ban to
a mere "statement of disassociation" from the
USCF, and you guessed it, Larry Parr and his
crew started complaining that it was not
nearly enough; that the USCF was obligated
to take a stand. (It also happened that the
2002 World Open saw Phil Innes achieve his
first IM norm after a freak loss to him by
Gary Kasparov, who was attacked in mid-
game by a huge, flying Oscar Meyer Weiner.
GK dropped his Queen on the wrong square,
and was distracted just long enough for Mr.
Innes to capture it before it could be shifted
to another square. Quite a struggle-- 197
moves in all, but PI ultimately prevailed in a
KQQQQQ vs. KRRBBNN ending by playing
random spite checks until GK resigned out
of frustration, saying he had better things to
do than continue holding the draw.)


> >> Where you get your idea that chess organizations
> >> exist to provide a haven for genocide advocates
> >> is a mystery.
>
> > I never said this. Why did you?

My guess is that he is /against/ genocide,
for some (unspecified) reason or other. But
did BF really advocate genocide, or was he
suggesting that the evil invaders go or be
sent back from whence they came? Oh,
wait-- I think he did mention imprisoning
Jews (or maybe worse).


> > I raised the subject of morality because of statements like yours.
> > Selective
> > application of moral judgment while turning a blind eye to other far
> > more
> > serious moral issues is not a confidence building practice.

More important than genocide? Ah, this
must be about an alien invasion, where the
future of life on Earth is threatened.


> To me, you are simply confused. To equate speaking out against
> those applauding terrorism with the Ku Klax Klan is just loopy.

Klux; it's the Ku Klux Klan. If a shotgun
"clacks" rather than "clucks", it needs
oiling. I recently watched In the Heat of
the Night. You know, it wasn't all that
long ago that it was what we now call
"politically correct" to be a racist pig like
Archie Bunker.


> > This also applies to the USCF and its punishment of Fischer. Now that
> > they
> > have decided to become judge's of moral behavior, what are they going to
> > do
> > about all the other cases of immoral behavior of people in the chess
> > world?
> > Will they set up a system of tribunals to judge these cases?

The notorious "ethics committee"?


> > People that want to paint things as completely black and white often
> > puzzle
> > me. Consider the following:
>
> > "One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic
> > achievement. If
> > our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as
> > indomitable to
> > restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.” --
> > Winston Churchill, Sept 1937

> > Does such a statement change your opinion of Hitler, or of Churchill?

It makes Mr. Churchill seem a dolt. The
"champion" got his country bombed into
rubble, many of his countrymen killed, the
rest despised.


> > How about the heroics of the carpet bombing of Tokyo in WWII?
>
> > “We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that
> > night of
> > March 9-10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.” --
> > General Curtis LeMay
>
> > Was this a war crime? Was it at least of sufficient importance to merit
> > investigation at the Nuremberg trials?

The decision to annihilate civilians is more
the issue here, than any one execution of
that policy, however "successful". What we
learn is the pretense of moral superiority is
laughable; that war-time propaganda is far
more than a mere tool-- it reflects the real
attitudes of those in power, those who make
such decisions.


> > We live in a country that turns a blind eye on many things. The victors
> > write
> > the histories. Who are the victors? Who controls our media and our
> > government representatives? Follow the money laddie...

Money talks. (Mine says "goodbye!")


> History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
> chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
> of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
> obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
> Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
> felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.

You might be thinking of Judit Polgar, not
his actual wife, Susan. The three girls were
trained from an early age, and I wonder if
the term "genius" is appropriate in such
cases where there is heavy training, which
nets results; especially professional chess
players training others to become like them.

Genius seems to suggest effortless
mastery, granted by the whims of the gods.
Sort of a level of understanding far beyond
one's training and preparations. One
famous quote has the then highest-rated
chess player of all time (as we now know)
saying that he had only known *one* such
player: Jose Capablanca. That seems to
cut out famous players like Mr. Steinitz,
Mr. Tartakower, Mr. Tarrasch, Mr. Marshall
and so forth, so how can anyone possibly
/include/ Susan Polgar?


-- help bot




       
Date: 25 Jul 2008 16:20:16
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 24, 12:33 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >>> Phil uses the phrase "abandonment of individual conscience" which strikes
>> >>> a
>> >>> chord with me.
>
> If Mr. IMnes were not already married, perhaps
> the two of you could... .
>
> **Could what? What is Kennedy's mind that he is shy to express? Agree with
> each other? Or does it seem like a sexual thing for him which is dependent on
> agreement? Kennedy often declares those who agree to be likely in love...
> <pfft!> or in some conspiracy group. Yet [lol] how should David Kane and I be
> in any group, except to concur now and again?
>

The person agreeing with Phil was not me (Kane),
but Walker. Apparently help bot is adopting Innes'
own convention in the attribution of quotes - "often wrong,
never corrected"



        
Date: 26 Jul 2008 15:15:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jul 24, 12:33 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> >>> Phil uses the phrase "abandonment of individual conscience" which
>>> >>> strikes a
>>> >>> chord with me.
>>
>> If Mr. IMnes were not already married, perhaps
>> the two of you could... .
>>
>> **Could what? What is Kennedy's mind that he is shy to express? Agree
>> with each other? Or does it seem like a sexual thing for him which is
>> dependent on agreement? Kennedy often declares those who agree to be
>> likely in love... <pfft!> or in some conspiracy group. Yet [lol] how
>> should David Kane and I be in any group, except to concur now and again?
>>
>
> The person agreeing with Phil was not me (Kane),
> but Walker. Apparently help bot is adopting Innes'
> own convention in the attribution of quotes - "often wrong,
> never corrected"

Sign your posts then, dimwit! and then I am less likely to make mistakes
responding to people whose views aren't identified, who care not to be
identified [!] and who do not use usenet protocol - so that if the header is
abbreviated then I can only assume from the post to which I respond who
wrote what.

As it is, as usual, Master Kennedy [some say], does not answer a point,
instead he diverts and trivialises it, in this case to allude homosexual
collusion by those who could discuss it - could discuss the nature of things
which result from contemplation upon experience.

The 'chord' //abandonment of individual conscience//, will sound with all
readers who are unhappy with the professions [the statements voluntarily
offered] of others which are not based on any serious consideration of
experiences they have had, and about such people who do not take
responsibity for their subsequent actions from some other, unmentioned,
basis.

The modern psycho-narcoleptic populist fable of writing in metaphysical
form, is a dire mechanistic response to life, which pretends we are but
machines and do not even have the possibility of directing our own lives,
our responses, our words. It pretends a point of view, but there are no
people there to offer it!

Who owns any point of view? Do not answer, "It is..."

Ownership and responsibility is the inevitable interception of the self by
conscience.

Phil Innes




     
Date: 22 Jul 2008 14:04:54
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
David Kane wrote:
>
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:05:24 -0700, "David Kane"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]m...
>>>
>>
>>>> In many ways Bobby put himself beyond the pale
>>>> of decent men, but that does not mean his membership
>>>> in the USCF should have been revoked.
>>
>>> As usual, Parr understands nothing. Fischer is known to the
>>> world solely because he played chess very well. When
>>> he was celebrating the terrorist actions, that reflects poorly
>>> on chessplayers as a group. (We, of course, know that
>>> Fischer had been nuts for a long time, but there are
>>> many who know the Fischer name, but not his mental
>>> history)
>>
>> I think anybody who listened to the broadcast, or read transcripts of
>> it would have to have been aware of his mental condition.
>>
>
> Perhaps. But stories like this can spread without the full
> context.
>
> "Did you hear that chessplayer Bobby
> Fischer applauded 9/11?"
>
> Though the numbers may not be great in either case, I'd
> be willing to bet that the number who heard something
> like my sentence above far outnumbered those who
> listened to the broadcast in full.
>
>>> What the USCF did was a symbolic gesture distancing
>>> itself from his words. It had no practical impact (Fischer
>>> not having been a member for decades) but simply
>>> showed that he did not speak for the American chess
>>> community.
>>
>> It's kinda like a poetry society disowning Ezra Pound. Alternatives
>> were possible, such as a USCF statement deploring Fischer's remarks.
>
> No doubt you are right - I am not micro-analyzing every
> aspect of the resolution. I am merely pointing ou that it was
> encouraging to see action of any kind - given a chess world
> full of apologists like Larry Parrs and his ilk. These people
> argue that chessplayers (if they are good enough) are on a
> higher plane - unconstrained by the rules made for the rest
> of humanity.

Have there been any serious sociological studies to determine how much
insanity infests the chess world? I imagine it is a fair bit higher
than the norm.

I greatly admired Fischer's chess and his fighting spirit (until he lost
it). I also thought he was quite loony as far back as the sixties.

On a tangent, I have been musing lately over popular moral judgments
made by many in America. One that interests me is the placement of
Hitler at the bottom of a hypothetical scale of evil -- perhaps joined
by Stalin. It has been said that history is written by the victors in
war. What about the losers and their story? Having thoroughly nailed
Hitler and Stalin to the base of our totem of evil, can we then turn our
attention to the victors?

I wish I knew more about history. That will have to wait for future
lifetimes.... A scholar seeking approximate moral objectivity towards
this totem of evil might ask the question, "Who was ultimately
responsible for the tragedies of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire
bombings of Dresden and other German civilian targets." Would that be
Truman and Churchill? If so, where should they be placed on the totem
of evil? Or does victory cleanse all stains of evil?
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


 
Date: 22 Jul 2008 05:59:18
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Jul 22, 12:15=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> FISCHER SHOULD BE REINSTATED POSTHUMOUSLY
>
> =A0 Taylor Kingston is correct. =A0Bobby Fischer said
> horrible, venomous things immediately AFTER the
> Twin Towers were demolished. =A0But what has this
> fact to do with depriving Bobby of USCF membership?

I made no comment on Fischer's USCF membership or lack thereof, or
the justice of rescinding or allowing his USCF membership. I only
wished to point out the glaring factual and logical errors in Sam
Sloan's view of Fischer's 9/11 comments.

> =A0 =A0 =A0 Emanuel Lasker was kicked out of the London
> Chess Club durng WWI because of his championing
> Germany and the vast slaughters on the Western Front.
> Lasker's nonsense was a way of excusing the horrors
> and even romanticizing them. =A0The numbers of bodies
> expontentially exceeded the of victims of the Twin Towers
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Later on Lasker was reinstated as a London
> Chess Club member, and the perfervid patriots slunk
> away in shame.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 The decision to kick Bobby out of the USCF was
> shameful and committed by men who permitted politics
> to trump Gens una sumus. =A0Their names will appear on
> history's dishonor roll.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0A delegates' resolution should be written to
> reinstate Bobby as an honorary USCF member.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 11:48?am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jul 21, 8:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 20, 8:40 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 20, 8:27 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 20, 3:39 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The anti-US statements made by Fischer during his infamous ra=
dio
> > > > > > > broadcast on 9/11 did not provide a proper basis to kick him =
out of
> > > > > > > the USCF. As explained in the book "Bobby Fischer, The Wander=
ing
> > > > > > > King", ?by Hans Bohm and Kees Jongking, page 122, Fischer's c=
omments
> > > > > > > on 9/11 were made before the actual collapse of the Twin Towe=
rs of the
> > > > > > > World Trade Center.
>
> > > > > > ? I have that book in front of me at this moment, and I see see=
no
> > > > > > such statement, on page 122 or anywhere else. However, it does =
make
> > > > > > very clear that Fischer knew of the attacks on the World Trade =
Center,
> > > > > > about which he said:
>
> > > > > > ? "This is all wonderful news. F--k the USA. F--k the Jews. It =
is time
> > > > > > for the United States to have their head kicked in. I want the =
United
> > > > > > States wiped out! Once and for all!" -- page 119
>
> > > > > > ? Is our Sam saying that the merit of Fischer's statements is
> > > > > > contingent on a few minutes' difference in their timing? That t=
hey
> > > > > > were OK if they were said after the planes had been made to cra=
sh into
> > > > > > the buildings, but *_before_* the towers collapsed? That they w=
ould
> > > > > > have been wrong only if said *_after_* the towers collapsed? Th=
e logic
> > > > > > of this eludes me completely.
>
> > > > > A few minutes later in the same broadcast, Fischer said, "That's =
the
> > > > > danger" that somebody might be killed. Obviously the twin towers =
had
> > > > > not fallen yet because after they fell it was obvious that many p=
eople
> > > > > had been killed.
>
> > > > > Also, Fischer was calling from Japan to a Radio Station in the
> > > > > Philippines. Japan is 14 hours ahead of us. Thus, by the time the=
Twin
> > > > > Towers fell it was already 9/12 in Japan.
>
> > > > > Yes, I think it makes a difference. When the airplane first crash=
ed
> > > > > into the World Trade Center, many thought that it was either an
> > > > > accident or a pilotless-drone.
>
> > > > ? The transcripts of the radio broadcast prove very clearly that
> > > > Fischer knew very well that hijacked airliners had been deliberatel=
y
> > > > crashed into the World Trade Center, and that he heartily approved =
of
> > > > it.
>
> > > > ? Sam, though you say and do many foolish things, perhaps nothing
> > > > makes you look so foolish on this forum as your absurd, baseless,
> > > > contrived attempts to spin Fischer's venomous hate-speech into
> > > > something praiseworthy, or at least blameless. Fischer was a sick m=
an
> > > > saying horrible things. Accept the facts.
>
> > > You are wrong. The tape recording shows very clearly that Bobby
> > > Fischer was talking about the Palestinian Issues.
>
> > =A0 Nonsense, Sam. Have a look here:
>
> > =A0http://www.bobby-fischer.net/fischer_interview_12092001.htm
>
> > =A0 It is "a transcript Bobby Fischer interview taken shortly after the
> > attack on the world trade center 11/09/2001." A few relevant quotes:
>
> > PABLO MERCADO (Radio Bombo): Bobby Fischer and he is on the line right
> > now and he would like to view his opinion and give some commentary on
> > what happened at the world trade center just a few hours ago and ...
> > It could be an attack at the White House and I think the Pentagon
> > too...
>
> > =A0 =A0 This makes clear right at the start that the 9/11 attack is the
> > topic. And it also makes clear that the interview occurred SEVERAL
> > HOURS AFTER the initial plane crashes. According to this article
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > World_Trade_center#September_11.2C_2001), the crashes occurred at 8:46
> > and 9:03 AM Eastern, followed by the collapse of the towers at 9:59 AM
> > and 10:28 AM.
> > =A0 In other words, there was a lapse of only 1 hour and 42 minutes
> > between the first crash and the second collapse. Even assuming that
> > "what happened at the world trade center just a few hours ago" refers
> > to the crashes, and not to the disintegration of the towers, it is
> > still very likely that "a few hours" later Fischer knew of the WTC's
> > total destruction.
>
> > FISCHER: Yes this is all wonderful news, it is time that the fucking
> > Jews get their heads kicked in. It's time to finish off the US once
> > and for all. ...
>
> > PM: Mhm, You are saying you are ... you are happy about what
> > happened?
>
> > FISCHER: Yes, I applaud the act.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0This makes very clear that Fischer was delighted by the atta=
cks.
>
> > PM: Hehe, right ... Well the US is super power, how did...
>
> > FISCHER: Well , probably it is not as powerful as everybody thought,
> > there were highjacked those planes , there has been no intelligence on
> > this, it was a major operation, Pablo, probably, hundreds of people
> > were hoping for this.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0This makes very clear that Fischer new the attacks were carr=
ied
> > out by hijacked planes, and that it was a carefully planned, organized
> > attack, not a random crash or anything involving unmanned robot craft.
>
> > > I have never seen a transcript of the Fischer broadcast on 9/11. I
> > > have only seen a few of the words. Do you have a complete transcript?
> > > If not, then STFU.
>
> > =A0 Hmmm, Sam, you don't usually use profanity, at least not on rgc. It
> > must really bug you to be caught out being so wrong.
> > =A0 Lest we be in any doubt about Fischer's feelings, a few more of his
> > remarks:
>
> > FISCHER: Democracy is just a load of bullshit, it is just a cover for
> > the criminal nature of the United States of America. But I'm hoping
> > for the Seven Days In May scenario, where sane people will take over
> > the US, military people. They will imprison the Jews, they will
> > execute several hundred thousand of them, at least.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



 
Date: 21 Jul 2008 23:51:08
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
NO LITMUS TEST

Taylor Kingston proved his case here, but Sam
Sloan is correct that Bobby was wrongly deprived of
USCF membership.

In the past we undoubtedly had USCF members who
applauded Stalin's slaughters of millions of innocent
people or who still defend obnoxious regimes that
torture and kill. Should they all have been or be
deprived of membership?

Let those who imagined that Khmer Rouge
"democracy" in Cambodia was a social advance remain
members of the USCF. Let those who gas about
executing Jews remain members of the USCF. Let
convicted, imprisoned sex murderers of innocent little
girls (which is to say, the guys who unlike Bobby
not only talk the talk, but stalk the stalk and laugh
uproariously as their young victims die in agony)
remain members of the USCF.

Indeed, such are the demands of intellectual
consistency, I would go so far as to assert that even
Bill Brock and David Kane can remain members of
the USCF. Oh, I know, I know. But categorical
imperatives cannot be shirked.

Why? There should be no political or personal
litmus test for USCF membership.

Yours, Larry Parr




[email protected] wrote:
> FISCHER SHOULD BE REINSTATED POSTHUMOUSLY
>
> Taylor Kingston is correct. Bobby Fischer said
> horrible, venomous things immediately AFTER the
> Twin Towers were demolished. But what has thia
> fact to do with depriving Bobby of USCF membership?
>
> Emanuel Lasker was kicked out of the London
> Chess Club durng WWI because of his championing
> Germany and the vast slaughters on the Western Front.
> Lasker's nonsense was a way of excusing the horrors
> and even romanticizing them. The numbers of bodies
> expontentially exceeded the of victims of the Twin Towers
>
> Later on Lasker was reinstated as a London
> Chess Club member, and the perfervid patriots slunk
> away in shame.
>
> The decision to kick Bobby out of the USCF was
> shameful and committed by men who permitted politics
> to trump Gens una sumus. Their names will appear on
> history's dishonor roll.
>
> A delegates' resolution should be written to
> reinstate Bobby as an honorary USCF member.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 11:48?am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jul 21, 8:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jul 20, 8:40 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Jul 20, 8:27 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > On Jul 20, 3:39 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > The anti-US statements made by Fischer during his infamous radio
> > > > > > > broadcast on 9/11 did not provide a proper basis to kick him out of
> > > > > > > the USCF. As explained in the book "Bobby Fischer, The Wandering
> > > > > > > King", ?by Hans Bohm and Kees Jongking, page 122, Fischer's comments
> > > > > > > on 9/11 were made before the actual collapse of the Twin Towers of the
> > > > > > > World Trade Center.
> > >
> > > > > > ? I have that book in front of me at this moment, and I see see no
> > > > > > such statement, on page 122 or anywhere else. However, it does make
> > > > > > very clear that Fischer knew of the attacks on the World Trade Center,
> > > > > > about which he said:
> > >
> > > > > > ? "This is all wonderful news. F--k the USA. F--k the Jews. It is time
> > > > > > for the United States to have their head kicked in. I want the United
> > > > > > States wiped out! Once and for all!" -- page 119
> > >
> > > > > > ? Is our Sam saying that the merit of Fischer's statements is
> > > > > > contingent on a few minutes' difference in their timing? That they
> > > > > > were OK if they were said after the planes had been made to crash into
> > > > > > the buildings, but *_before_* the towers collapsed? That they would
> > > > > > have been wrong only if said *_after_* the towers collapsed? The logic
> > > > > > of this eludes me completely.
> > >
> > > > > A few minutes later in the same broadcast, Fischer said, "That's the
> > > > > danger" that somebody might be killed. Obviously the twin towers had
> > > > > not fallen yet because after they fell it was obvious that many people
> > > > > had been killed.
> > >
> > > > > Also, Fischer was calling from Japan to a Radio Station in the
> > > > > Philippines. Japan is 14 hours ahead of us. Thus, by the time the Twin
> > > > > Towers fell it was already 9/12 in Japan.
> > >
> > > > > Yes, I think it makes a difference. When the airplane first crashed
> > > > > into the World Trade Center, many thought that it was either an
> > > > > accident or a pilotless-drone.
> > >
> > > > ? The transcripts of the radio broadcast prove very clearly that
> > > > Fischer knew very well that hijacked airliners had been deliberately
> > > > crashed into the World Trade Center, and that he heartily approved of
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > > ? Sam, though you say and do many foolish things, perhaps nothing
> > > > makes you look so foolish on this forum as your absurd, baseless,
> > > > contrived attempts to spin Fischer's venomous hate-speech into
> > > > something praiseworthy, or at least blameless. Fischer was a sick man
> > > > saying horrible things. Accept the facts.
> > >
> > > You are wrong. The tape recording shows very clearly that Bobby
> > > Fischer was talking about the Palestinian Issues.
> >
> > Nonsense, Sam. Have a look here:
> >
> > http://www.bobby-fischer.net/fischer_interview_12092001.htm
> >
> > It is "a transcript Bobby Fischer interview taken shortly after the
> > attack on the world trade center 11/09/2001." A few relevant quotes:
> >
> > PABLO MERCADO (Radio Bombo): Bobby Fischer and he is on the line right
> > now and he would like to view his opinion and give some commentary on
> > what happened at the world trade center just a few hours ago and ...
> > It could be an attack at the White House and I think the Pentagon
> > too...
> >
> > This makes clear right at the start that the 9/11 attack is the
> > topic. And it also makes clear that the interview occurred SEVERAL
> > HOURS AFTER the initial plane crashes. According to this article
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > World_Trade_center#September_11.2C_2001), the crashes occurred at 8:46
> > and 9:03 AM Eastern, followed by the collapse of the towers at 9:59 AM
> > and 10:28 AM.
> > In other words, there was a lapse of only 1 hour and 42 minutes
> > between the first crash and the second collapse. Even assuming that
> > "what happened at the world trade center just a few hours ago" refers
> > to the crashes, and not to the disintegration of the towers, it is
> > still very likely that "a few hours" later Fischer knew of the WTC's
> > total destruction.
> >
> > FISCHER: Yes this is all wonderful news, it is time that the fucking
> > Jews get their heads kicked in. It's time to finish off the US once
> > and for all. ...
> >
> > PM: Mhm, You are saying you are ... you are happy about what
> > happened?
> >
> > FISCHER: Yes, I applaud the act.
> >
> > This makes very clear that Fischer was delighted by the attacks.
> >
> > PM: Hehe, right ... Well the US is super power, how did...
> >
> > FISCHER: Well , probably it is not as powerful as everybody thought,
> > there were highjacked those planes , there has been no intelligence on
> > this, it was a major operation, Pablo, probably, hundreds of people
> > were hoping for this.
> >
> > This makes very clear that Fischer new the attacks were carried
> > out by hijacked planes, and that it was a carefully planned, organized
> > attack, not a random crash or anything involving unmanned robot craft.
> >
> > > I have never seen a transcript of the Fischer broadcast on 9/11. I
> > > have only seen a few of the words. Do you have a complete transcript?
> > > If not, then STFU.
> >
> > Hmmm, Sam, you don't usually use profanity, at least not on rgc. It
> > must really bug you to be caught out being so wrong.
> > Lest we be in any doubt about Fischer's feelings, a few more of his
> > remarks:
> >
> > FISCHER: Democracy is just a load of bullshit, it is just a cover for
> > the criminal nature of the United States of America. But I'm hoping
> > for the Seven Days In May scenario, where sane people will take over
> > the US, military people. They will imprison the Jews, they will
> > execute several hundred thousand of them, at least.


 
Date: 21 Jul 2008 21:15:32
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
FISCHER SHOULD BE REINSTATED POSTHUMOUSLY

Taylor Kingston is correct. Bobby Fischer said
horrible, venomous things immediately AFTER the
Twin Towers were demolished. But what has thia
fact to do with depriving Bobby of USCF membership?

Emanuel Lasker was kicked out of the London
Chess Club durng WWI because of his championing
Germany and the vast slaughters on the Western Front.
Lasker's nonsense was a way of excusing the horrors
and even romanticizing them. The numbers of bodies
expontentially exceeded the of victims of the Twin Towers

Later on Lasker was reinstated as a London
Chess Club member, and the perfervid patriots slunk
away in shame.

The decision to kick Bobby out of the USCF was
shameful and committed by men who permitted politics
to trump Gens una sumus. Their names will appear on
history's dishonor roll.

A delegates' resolution should be written to
reinstate Bobby as an honorary USCF member.

Yours, Larry Parr




[email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 21, 11:48?am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 8:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 20, 8:40 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jul 20, 8:27 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jul 20, 3:39 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > The anti-US statements made by Fischer during his infamous radio
> > > > > > broadcast on 9/11 did not provide a proper basis to kick him out of
> > > > > > the USCF. As explained in the book "Bobby Fischer, The Wandering
> > > > > > King", ?by Hans Bohm and Kees Jongking, page 122, Fischer's comments
> > > > > > on 9/11 were made before the actual collapse of the Twin Towers of the
> > > > > > World Trade Center.
> >
> > > > > ? I have that book in front of me at this moment, and I see see no
> > > > > such statement, on page 122 or anywhere else. However, it does make
> > > > > very clear that Fischer knew of the attacks on the World Trade Center,
> > > > > about which he said:
> >
> > > > > ? "This is all wonderful news. F--k the USA. F--k the Jews. It is time
> > > > > for the United States to have their head kicked in. I want the United
> > > > > States wiped out! Once and for all!" -- page 119
> >
> > > > > ? Is our Sam saying that the merit of Fischer's statements is
> > > > > contingent on a few minutes' difference in their timing? That they
> > > > > were OK if they were said after the planes had been made to crash into
> > > > > the buildings, but *_before_* the towers collapsed? That they would
> > > > > have been wrong only if said *_after_* the towers collapsed? The logic
> > > > > of this eludes me completely.
> >
> > > > A few minutes later in the same broadcast, Fischer said, "That's the
> > > > danger" that somebody might be killed. Obviously the twin towers had
> > > > not fallen yet because after they fell it was obvious that many people
> > > > had been killed.
> >
> > > > Also, Fischer was calling from Japan to a Radio Station in the
> > > > Philippines. Japan is 14 hours ahead of us. Thus, by the time the Twin
> > > > Towers fell it was already 9/12 in Japan.
> >
> > > > Yes, I think it makes a difference. When the airplane first crashed
> > > > into the World Trade Center, many thought that it was either an
> > > > accident or a pilotless-drone.
> >
> > > ? The transcripts of the radio broadcast prove very clearly that
> > > Fischer knew very well that hijacked airliners had been deliberately
> > > crashed into the World Trade Center, and that he heartily approved of
> > > it.
> >
> > > ? Sam, though you say and do many foolish things, perhaps nothing
> > > makes you look so foolish on this forum as your absurd, baseless,
> > > contrived attempts to spin Fischer's venomous hate-speech into
> > > something praiseworthy, or at least blameless. Fischer was a sick man
> > > saying horrible things. Accept the facts.
> >
> > You are wrong. The tape recording shows very clearly that Bobby
> > Fischer was talking about the Palestinian Issues.
>
> Nonsense, Sam. Have a look here:
>
> http://www.bobby-fischer.net/fischer_interview_12092001.htm
>
> It is "a transcript Bobby Fischer interview taken shortly after the
> attack on the world trade center 11/09/2001." A few relevant quotes:
>
> PABLO MERCADO (Radio Bombo): Bobby Fischer and he is on the line right
> now and he would like to view his opinion and give some commentary on
> what happened at the world trade center just a few hours ago and ...
> It could be an attack at the White House and I think the Pentagon
> too...
>
> This makes clear right at the start that the 9/11 attack is the
> topic. And it also makes clear that the interview occurred SEVERAL
> HOURS AFTER the initial plane crashes. According to this article
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> World_Trade_center#September_11.2C_2001), the crashes occurred at 8:46
> and 9:03 AM Eastern, followed by the collapse of the towers at 9:59 AM
> and 10:28 AM.
> In other words, there was a lapse of only 1 hour and 42 minutes
> between the first crash and the second collapse. Even assuming that
> "what happened at the world trade center just a few hours ago" refers
> to the crashes, and not to the disintegration of the towers, it is
> still very likely that "a few hours" later Fischer knew of the WTC's
> total destruction.
>
> FISCHER: Yes this is all wonderful news, it is time that the fucking
> Jews get their heads kicked in. It's time to finish off the US once
> and for all. ...
>
> PM: Mhm, You are saying you are ... you are happy about what
> happened?
>
> FISCHER: Yes, I applaud the act.
>
> This makes very clear that Fischer was delighted by the attacks.
>
> PM: Hehe, right ... Well the US is super power, how did...
>
> FISCHER: Well , probably it is not as powerful as everybody thought,
> there were highjacked those planes , there has been no intelligence on
> this, it was a major operation, Pablo, probably, hundreds of people
> were hoping for this.
>
> This makes very clear that Fischer new the attacks were carried
> out by hijacked planes, and that it was a carefully planned, organized
> attack, not a random crash or anything involving unmanned robot craft.
>
> > I have never seen a transcript of the Fischer broadcast on 9/11. I
> > have only seen a few of the words. Do you have a complete transcript?
> > If not, then STFU.
>
> Hmmm, Sam, you don't usually use profanity, at least not on rgc. It
> must really bug you to be caught out being so wrong.
> Lest we be in any doubt about Fischer's feelings, a few more of his
> remarks:
>
> FISCHER: Democracy is just a load of bullshit, it is just a cover for
> the criminal nature of the United States of America. But I'm hoping
> for the Seven Days In May scenario, where sane people will take over
> the US, military people. They will imprison the Jews, they will
> execute several hundred thousand of them, at least.


  
Date: 22 Jul 2008 09:44:59
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> The numbers of bodies
> expontentially exceeded the of victims of the Twin Towers

Why do you use words you don't understand?

Can you give an example of one number exceeding another
exponentially?



  
Date: 21 Jul 2008 23:43:12
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FISCHER SHOULD BE REINSTATED POSTHUMOUSLY
>

>
> The decision to kick Bobby out of the USCF was
> shameful and committed by men who permitted politics
> to trump Gens una sumus. Their names will appear on
> history's dishonor roll.

Parr's vision - in which there are no standards that
cannot be waived for the talented - has plagued the USCF
for a long time. For 30+ years, no American who made a
living from chess could criticize Fischer frankly - lest he return and they
find themselves as outsiders.

A similar mentality seems to be at work in the Truong affair.
I'm sure that few of the USCF insiders on the EB or Ethics
committee truly believe that Truong's posting 1000's
of obscene messages in the names of others is appropriate
behavior, but it has not stopped them from cravenly giving
him a pass because he has a famous wife.

The lack of standards that Parr advocates is something
the chess world should be ashamed of.





 
Date: 21 Jul 2008 19:55:03
From:
Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF


samsloan wrote:
> On Jul 21, 6:07 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > samsloan wrote:
> >
> > > Louis Blair continues with the same nonsense he has been spouting for
> > > years.
> >
> > > The "Delegates Actions of Continuing Interest", Section 17, page 35
> > > on the 2008 Delegate's Call clearly provides that all grandmasters
> > > registered as US Players by FIDE are automatically USCF members.
> >
> > > No letter has ever been found from Fischer resigning his USCF
> > > Membership. Thus, Fischer was still a USCF member.
> >
> > > The anti-US statements made by Fischer during his infamous radio
> > > broadcast on 9/11 did not provide a proper basis to kick him out of
> > > the USCF. As explained in the book "Bobby Fischer, The Wandering
> > > King", by Hans Bohm and Kees Jongking, page 122, Fischer's comments
> > > on 9/11 were made before the actual collapse of the Twin Towers of the
> > > World Trade Center.
> >
> > > Goichberg's claim that Fischer should "apply" for USCF membership was
> > > just an excuse as he knew that Fischer would never apply and indeed no
> > > other grandmaster has ever been required to apply for USCF membership.
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > No, Sam, that's not what DACI-17 says. Did you bother to read it?
> >
> > "17. Free Membership to Grandmasters and Woman Grandmasters.
> > USCF membership shall be awarded upon request to International
> > Grandmasters, including Women Grandmasters, when it is determined by
> > the Executive
> > Director that a player is registering with FIDE as an American player;
> > or when an American player is awarded the title by FIDE. (1980, 1991)"
> >
> > I can't bold anything here, but I suggest you re-read the words "upon
> > request." Can you offer any evidence that Fischer requested USCF
> > membership at any time after 1980? If not, stop wasting our time with
> > this drivel. I'm afraid we'll have to scrap those "Chess makes you
> > smart" bumper stickers as long as you're a member.
>
> The words "on request" were added during the 2007 delegate's meeting
> in Cherry Hill, in response to my complaints about Fischer not being
> given his membership.
>
> Fischer clearly was legally a member under the by-laws that existed
> prior to the change in 2007.
>
> Sam Sloan

1) The DACIs are not the Bylaws. You've made this mistake before. 2)
If Fischer had ever shown up and entered a US tournament, he would
have been given a membership. I assure you no one would ahve asked him
for $44. 3) This is one more example of how you wasted everyone's time
when you were on the Board. It's a motion with absolutely no practical
effect. Exactly how would the USCF -- or Fischer -- have benefited
from his being "given" a membership he didn't want? More proof that
you were/are a useless parasite. Let's hope the voters remember it.


 
Date: 21 Jul 2008 19:04:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF
On Jul 21, 6:07 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
>
> > Louis Blair continues with the same nonsense he has been spouting for
> > years.
>
> > The "Delegates Actions of Continuing Interest", Section 17, page 35
> > on the 2008 Delegate's Call clearly provides that all grandmasters
> > registered as US Players by FIDE are automatically USCF members.
>
> > No letter has ever been found from Fischer resigning his USCF
> > Membership. Thus, Fischer was still a USCF member.
>
> > The anti-US statements made by Fischer during his infamous radio
> > broadcast on 9/11 did not provide a proper basis to kick him out of
> > the USCF. As explained in the book "Bobby Fischer, The Wandering
> > King", by Hans Bohm and Kees Jongking, page 122, Fischer's comments
> > on 9/11 were made before the actual collapse of the Twin Towers of the
> > World Trade Center.
>
> > Goichberg's claim that Fischer should "apply" for USCF membership was
> > just an excuse as he knew that Fischer would never apply and indeed no
> > other grandmaster has ever been required to apply for USCF membership.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> No, Sam, that's not what DACI-17 says. Did you bother to read it?
>
> "17. Free Membership to Grandmasters and Woman Grandmasters.
> USCF membership shall be awarded upon request to International
> Grandmasters, including Women Grandmasters, when it is determined by
> the Executive
> Director that a player is registering with FIDE as an American player;
> or when an American player is awarded the title by FIDE. (1980, 1991)"
>
> I can't bold anything here, but I suggest you re-read the words "upon
> request." Can you offer any evidence that Fischer requested USCF
> membership at any time after 1980? If not, stop wasting our time with
> this drivel. I'm afraid we'll have to scrap those "Chess makes you
> smart" bumper stickers as long as you're a member.

The words "on request" were added during the 2007 delegate's meeting
in Cherry Hill, in response to my complaints about Fischer not being
given his membership.

Fischer clearly was legally a member under the by-laws that existed
prior to the change in 2007.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 21 Jul 2008 16:07:17
From:
Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF


samsloan wrote:
>
> Louis Blair continues with the same nonsense he has been spouting for
> years.
>
> The "Delegates Actions of Continuing Interest", Section 17, page 35
> on the 2008 Delegate's Call clearly provides that all grandmasters
> registered as US Players by FIDE are automatically USCF members.
>
> No letter has ever been found from Fischer resigning his USCF
> Membership. Thus, Fischer was still a USCF member.
>
> The anti-US statements made by Fischer during his infamous radio
> broadcast on 9/11 did not provide a proper basis to kick him out of
> the USCF. As explained in the book "Bobby Fischer, The Wandering
> King", by Hans Bohm and Kees Jongking, page 122, Fischer's comments
> on 9/11 were made before the actual collapse of the Twin Towers of the
> World Trade Center.
>
> Goichberg's claim that Fischer should "apply" for USCF membership was
> just an excuse as he knew that Fischer would never apply and indeed no
> other grandmaster has ever been required to apply for USCF membership.
>
> Sam Sloan


No, Sam, that's not what DACI-17 says. Did you bother to read it?

"17. Free Membership to Grandmasters and Woman Grandmasters.
USCF membership shall be awarded upon request to International
Grandmasters, including Women Grandmasters, when it is determined by
the Executive
Director that a player is registering with FIDE as an American player;
or when an American player is awarded the title by FIDE. (1980, 1991)"

I can't bold anything here, but I suggest you re-read the words "upon
request." Can you offer any evidence that Fischer requested USCF
membership at any time after 1980? If not, stop wasting our time with
this drivel. I'm afraid we'll have to scrap those "Chess makes you
smart" bumper stickers as long as you're a member.


 
Date: 21 Jul 2008 09:30:29
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing (was: Ed Trice should be
On Jul 21, 11:48=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 8:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 8:40 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 8:27 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 20, 3:39 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > The anti-US statements made by Fischer during his infamous radio
> > > > > broadcast on 9/11 did not provide a proper basis to kick him out =
of
> > > > > the USCF. As explained in the book "Bobby Fischer, The Wandering
> > > > > King", =A0by Hans Bohm and Kees Jongking, page 122, Fischer's com=
ments
> > > > > on 9/11 were made before the actual collapse of the Twin Towers o=
f the
> > > > > World Trade Center.
>
> > > > =A0 I have that book in front of me at this moment, and I see see n=
o
> > > > such statement, on page 122 or anywhere else. However, it does make
> > > > very clear that Fischer knew of the attacks on the World Trade Cent=
er,
> > > > about which he said:
>
> > > > =A0 "This is all wonderful news. F--k the USA. F--k the Jews. It is=
time
> > > > for the United States to have their head kicked in. I want the Unit=
ed
> > > > States wiped out! Once and for all!" -- page 119
>
> > > > =A0 Is our Sam saying that the merit of Fischer's statements is
> > > > contingent on a few minutes' difference in their timing? That they
> > > > were OK if they were said after the planes had been made to crash i=
nto
> > > > the buildings, but *_before_* the towers collapsed? That they would
> > > > have been wrong only if said *_after_* the towers collapsed? The lo=
gic
> > > > of this eludes me completely.
>
> > > A few minutes later in the same broadcast, Fischer said, "That's the
> > > danger" that somebody might be killed. Obviously the twin towers had
> > > not fallen yet because after they fell it was obvious that many peopl=
e
> > > had been killed.
>
> > > Also, Fischer was calling from Japan to a Radio Station in the
> > > Philippines. Japan is 14 hours ahead of us. Thus, by the time the Twi=
n
> > > Towers fell it was already 9/12 in Japan.
>
> > > Yes, I think it makes a difference. When the airplane first crashed
> > > into the World Trade Center, many thought that it was either an
> > > accident or a pilotless-drone.
>
> > =A0 The transcripts of the radio broadcast prove very clearly that
> > Fischer knew very well that hijacked airliners had been deliberately
> > crashed into the World Trade Center, and that he heartily approved of
> > it.
>
> > =A0 Sam, though you say and do many foolish things, perhaps nothing
> > makes you look so foolish on this forum as your absurd, baseless,
> > contrived attempts to spin Fischer's venomous hate-speech into
> > something praiseworthy, or at least blameless. Fischer was a sick man
> > saying horrible things. Accept the facts.
>
> You are wrong. The tape recording shows very clearly that Bobby
> Fischer was talking about the Palestinian Issues.

Nonsense, Sam. Have a look here:

http://www.bobby-fischer.net/fischer_interview_12092001.htm

It is "a transcript Bobby Fischer interview taken shortly after the
attack on the world trade center 11/09/2001." A few relevant quotes:

PABLO MERCADO (Radio Bombo): Bobby Fischer and he is on the line right
now and he would like to view his opinion and give some commentary on
what happened at the world trade center just a few hours ago and ...
It could be an attack at the White House and I think the Pentagon
too...

This makes clear right at the start that the 9/11 attack is the
topic. And it also makes clear that the interview occurred SEVERAL
HOURS AFTER the initial plane crashes. According to this article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
World_Trade_center#September_11.2C_2001), the crashes occurred at 8:46
and 9:03 AM Eastern, followed by the collapse of the towers at 9:59 AM
and 10:28 AM.
In other words, there was a lapse of only 1 hour and 42 minutes
between the first crash and the second collapse. Even assuming that
"what happened at the world trade center just a few hours ago" refers
to the crashes, and not to the disintegration of the towers, it is
still very likely that "a few hours" later Fischer knew of the WTC's
total destruction.

FISCHER: Yes this is all wonderful news, it is time that the fucking
Jews get their heads kicked in. It's time to finish off the US once
and for all. ...

PM: Mhm, You are saying you are ... you are happy about what
happened?

FISCHER: Yes, I applaud the act.

This makes very clear that Fischer was delighted by the attacks.

PM: Hehe, right ... Well the US is super power, how did...

FISCHER: Well , probably it is not as powerful as everybody thought,
there were highjacked those planes , there has been no intelligence on
this, it was a major operation, Pablo, probably, hundreds of people
were hoping for this.

This makes very clear that Fischer new the attacks were carried
out by hijacked planes, and that it was a carefully planned, organized
attack, not a random crash or anything involving unmanned robot craft.

> I have never seen a transcript of the Fischer broadcast on 9/11. I
> have only seen a few of the words. Do you have a complete transcript?
> If not, then STFU.

Hmmm, Sam, you don't usually use profanity, at least not on rgc. It
must really bug you to be caught out being so wrong.
Lest we be in any doubt about Fischer's feelings, a few more of his
remarks:

FISCHER: Democracy is just a load of bullshit, it is just a cover for
the criminal nature of the United States of America. But I'm hoping
for the Seven Days In May scenario, where sane people will take over
the US, military people. They will imprison the Jews, they will
execute several hundred thousand of them, at least.


 
Date: 21 Jul 2008 08:48:58
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing (was: Ed Trice should be
On Jul 21, 8:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 20, 8:40 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 8:27 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 3:39 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > The anti-US statements made by Fischer during his infamous radio
> > > > broadcast on 9/11 did not provide a proper basis to kick him out of
> > > > the USCF. As explained in the book "Bobby Fischer, The Wandering
> > > > King", by Hans Bohm and Kees Jongking, page 122, Fischer's comments
> > > > on 9/11 were made before the actual collapse of the Twin Towers of the
> > > > World Trade Center.
>
> > > I have that book in front of me at this moment, and I see see no
> > > such statement, on page 122 or anywhere else. However, it does make
> > > very clear that Fischer knew of the attacks on the World Trade Center,
> > > about which he said:
>
> > > "This is all wonderful news. F--k the USA. F--k the Jews. It is time
> > > for the United States to have their head kicked in. I want the United
> > > States wiped out! Once and for all!" -- page 119
>
> > > Is our Sam saying that the merit of Fischer's statements is
> > > contingent on a few minutes' difference in their timing? That they
> > > were OK if they were said after the planes had been made to crash into
> > > the buildings, but *_before_* the towers collapsed? That they would
> > > have been wrong only if said *_after_* the towers collapsed? The logic
> > > of this eludes me completely.
>
> > A few minutes later in the same broadcast, Fischer said, "That's the
> > danger" that somebody might be killed. Obviously the twin towers had
> > not fallen yet because after they fell it was obvious that many people
> > had been killed.
>
> > Also, Fischer was calling from Japan to a Radio Station in the
> > Philippines. Japan is 14 hours ahead of us. Thus, by the time the Twin
> > Towers fell it was already 9/12 in Japan.
>
> > Yes, I think it makes a difference. When the airplane first crashed
> > into the World Trade Center, many thought that it was either an
> > accident or a pilotless-drone.
>
> The transcripts of the radio broadcast prove very clearly that
> Fischer knew very well that hijacked airliners had been deliberately
> crashed into the World Trade Center, and that he heartily approved of
> it.
>
> Sam, though you say and do many foolish things, perhaps nothing
> makes you look so foolish on this forum as your absurd, baseless,
> contrived attempts to spin Fischer's venomous hate-speech into
> something praiseworthy, or at least blameless. Fischer was a sick man
> saying horrible things. Accept the facts.

You are wrong. The tape recording shows very clearly that Bobby
Fischer was talking about the Palestinian Issues.

I have never seen a transcript of the Fischer broadcast on 9/11. I
have only seen a few of the words. Do you have a complete transcript?
If not, then STFU.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 21 Jul 2008 06:05:26
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing (was: Ed Trice should be
On Jul 20, 8:40=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 8:27 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 3:39 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The anti-US statements made by Fischer during his infamous radio
> > > broadcast on 9/11 did not provide a proper basis to kick him out of
> > > the USCF. As explained in the book "Bobby Fischer, The Wandering
> > > King", =A0by Hans Bohm and Kees Jongking, page 122, Fischer's comment=
s
> > > on 9/11 were made before the actual collapse of the Twin Towers of th=
e
> > > World Trade Center.
>
> > =A0 I have that book in front of me at this moment, and I see see no
> > such statement, on page 122 or anywhere else. However, it does make
> > very clear that Fischer knew of the attacks on the World Trade Center,
> > about which he said:
>
> > =A0 "This is all wonderful news. F--k the USA. F--k the Jews. It is tim=
e
> > for the United States to have their head kicked in. I want the United
> > States wiped out! Once and for all!" -- page 119
>
> > =A0 Is our Sam saying that the merit of Fischer's statements is
> > contingent on a few minutes' difference in their timing? That they
> > were OK if they were said after the planes had been made to crash into
> > the buildings, but *_before_* the towers collapsed? That they would
> > have been wrong only if said *_after_* the towers collapsed? The logic
> > of this eludes me completely.
>
> A few minutes later in the same broadcast, Fischer said, "That's the
> danger" that somebody might be killed. Obviously the twin towers had
> not fallen yet because after they fell it was obvious that many people
> had been killed.
>
> Also, Fischer was calling from Japan to a Radio Station in the
> Philippines. Japan is 14 hours ahead of us. Thus, by the time the Twin
> Towers fell it was already 9/12 in Japan.
>
> Yes, I think it makes a difference. When the airplane first crashed
> into the World Trade Center, many thought that it was either an
> accident or a pilotless-drone.

The transcripts of the radio broadcast prove very clearly that
Fischer knew very well that hijacked airliners had been deliberately
crashed into the World Trade Center, and that he heartily approved of
it.

Sam, though you say and do many foolish things, perhaps nothing
makes you look so foolish on this forum as your absurd, baseless,
contrived attempts to spin Fischer's venomous hate-speech into
something praiseworthy, or at least blameless. Fischer was a sick man
saying horrible things. Accept the facts.


  
Date: 23 Jul 2008 16:57:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Jul 23, 9:38 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> > On a tangent, I have been musing lately over popular moral judgments
> > made by many in America. One that interests me is the placement of
> > Hitler at the bottom of a hypothetical scale of evil -- perhaps joined
> > by Stalin. It has been said that history is written by the victors in
> > war. What about the losers and their story? Having thoroughly nailed
> > Hitler and Stalin to the base of our totem of evil, can we then turn our
> > attention to the victors?
>
> > I wish I knew more about history. That will have to wait for future
> > lifetimes.... A scholar seeking approximate moral objectivity towards
> > this totem of evil might ask the question, "Who was ultimately
> > responsible for the tragedies of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire
> > bombings of Dresden and other German civilian targets." Would that be
> > Truman and Churchill? If so, where should they be placed on the totem
> > of evil? Or does victory cleanse all stains of evil?

> I do not like to comment on non-chess matters here, but I can't quite
> let this pass. War-time leaders often must make decisions that must
> seem horrible even to them, since the death of large numbers of people
> may depend on their choice. Truman and Churchill, fundamentally good
> men, faced these difficult decisions many times. We can disagree with
> their decisions (and I do with some), but it is very easy to see that
> each was made for what seemed at the time like a morally defensible
> reason. Horrible as it was, and most of us think it was not justified
> today because it is so horrible to contemplate, the decision to bomb
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki was on a calculation that this would save lives
> (on both sides, even) when compared to an actual invasion of Japan.


As pointed out earlier, this is quite obviously
a false dichotomy.

There were two /independent/ choices here:

1. To invade Japan or not to invade Japan;

2. To use the bomb or not to use it.

Various combinations were possible, such
as both bombing *and* invading Japan, or
bombing a non-civilian target first, or simply
not invading regardless of what decisions
were made regarding the bombs.


> the other side, and I like most Americans realize that neither Obama
> nor McCain should in any way be viewed as evil people.

The famous ad populum fallacy.

Once all the glaring fallacies are removed,
you might begin to see that a lot of your
arguments are baseless opinions. But the
trick lies in being able to spot them in the
first place, and in being determined to
eradicate them, on principle.


-- help bot


  
Date: 23 Jul 2008 16:43:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Jul 23, 6:03 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:


> > Look, you can't maintain that the victors
> > write the story and at the same time say
> > that Mr. Stalin was evil,
>
> Yes you can, because ultimately Ronny from Hollywood
> defeated the Evil Empire.

No, no, no! You are getting the plot all mixed
up. In WWII, the "evil" empire consisted of
Germany, Italy and Japan-- not Russia because
she was on "our" side.


> If the Evil Empire had defeated Ronny from
> Hollywood history would be written quite differently.

You are mixing Cold War plot with WWII plot,
then shaking like a vodka martini. That's not
how movies are done.


> > since it was the
> > Russians who really bore the brunt of the
> > burden in defeating Germany. It's like
> > saying Mr. Churchill was a wimp, then
> > noting how well he held out under fire.
>
> When was Churchill ever under fire?

In one movie I saw recently, he not only
was under fire, but he was nearly shot dead!
It turned out that the real Mr. Churchill was
in an important conference somewhere, and
the stand-in was just a look-alike decoy.
Maybe you've seen it-- Donald Sutherland,
Michael Caine?


> When were Hitler, Truman and deGaulle
> under fire?

I don't know. Did they all feature in the
movie with John Wayne, Robert Mitchum,
etc., etc.? Some of these guys were not
exactly leading-man-material, so it makes
sense for them to have played along-side
those big ugly mugs... .


-- help bot




  
Date: 23 Jul 2008 12:58:56
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Jul 23, 6:03=A0am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> When was Churchill ever under fire?
> When were Hitler, Truman and deGaulle
> under fire?

A few more details on this, derived from "The First World War: A
Complete History" by Martin Gilbert (Henry Holt & Co., 1994):

Adolf Hitler:

16 August 1914: Enlists in a Bavarian infantry regiment.
29 October 1914: Sees first action, at Gheluvelt, France. His
regiment suffers 349 casualties. Promoted to lance-corporal.
5 November 1914: Takes part in fighting near Wytshate on the Ypres
front, for which he is later awarded the Iron Cross, 2nd class.
9 May 1918: Awarded regiment diploma for outstanding bravery.
4 August 1918: Awarded Iron Cross 1st class for "personal bravery
and general merit."
14 October 1918: Temporarily blinded by gas in the Ypres Salient.
Spends rest of war recovering in a military hospital in Pomerania.

Charles De Gaulle:

13 August 1914: Comes under heavy German fire While serving as a
lieutenant near Dinant, France. Wounded in the knee.
10 March 1915: Wounded in the hand by schrapnel near Verdun.
2 March 1916: Wounded in thigh by bayonet in action near Vaux.
Captured by the Germans. Remains in captivity until war's end.

Harry S. Truman:

25 September 1918: While serving as Captain of an artilery battery
in the Argonne Forest, his unit fires 3,000 rounds in 4 hours. Comes
under German fire in return.
29 September 1918: Fires on 3 German batteries on the Meuse-Argonne
front, destroying one and putting the other two out of action.
27 October 1918: Narrowly escapes death when German shells land on
either side of him.

Winston Churchill:

January 1916: Begins serving as a battalion commander with the BEF,
near the village of Ploegsteert, Holland. Serves on the Western Front
for six months, often where action was heavy. Nearly killed by German
artillery on several occasions. On one occasion, a shell smashed
through his bedroom but failed to explode.

This does not include whatever action any of them may have seen in
other conflicts, for example Churchill in the Boer War. In any event,
it's clear that Churchill, Hitler, De Gaulle and Truman all had ample
experience of being under fire.


  
Date: 23 Jul 2008 09:54:20
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
I will be happy to continue this discussion in private email, if you
are interested; I believe that some of your statements are good
example of what I called political naivete. I don't think this is the
correct forum for general political discussion, however.

Jerry Spinrad

On Jul 23, 10:35=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 4:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> David Kane wrote:
>
> >>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]
> >>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:05:24 -0700, "David Kane"
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:[email protected]=
om...
> >>>>>> =A0 =A0 In many ways Bobby put himself beyond the pale
> >>>>>> of decent men, but that does not mean his membership
> >>>>>> in the USCF should have been revoked.
> >>>>> As usual, Parr understands nothing. Fischer is known to the
> >>>>> world solely because he played chess very well. When
> >>>>> he was celebrating the terrorist actions, that reflects poorly
> >>>>> on chessplayers as a group. (We, of course, know that
> >>>>> Fischer had been nuts for a long time, but there are
> >>>>> many who know the Fischer name, but not his mental
> >>>>> history)
> >>>> I think anybody who listened to the broadcast, =A0or read transcript=
s of
> >>>> it would have to have been aware of his mental condition.
> >>> Perhaps. But stories like this can spread without the full
> >>> context.
> >>> "Did you hear that chessplayer Bobby
> >>> Fischer applauded 9/11?"
> >>> Though the numbers may not be great in either case, I'd
> >>> be willing to bet that the number who heard something
> >>> like my sentence above far outnumbered those who
> >>> listened to the broadcast in full.
> >>>>> What the USCF did was a symbolic gesture distancing
> >>>>> itself from his words. It had no practical impact (Fischer
> >>>>> not having been a member for decades) but simply
> >>>>> showed that he did not speak for the American chess
> >>>>> community.
> >>>> It's kinda like a poetry society disowning Ezra Pound. =A0Alternativ=
es
> >>>> were possible, such as a USCF statement deploring Fischer's remarks.
> >>> No doubt you are right - I am not micro-analyzing every
> >>> aspect of the resolution. I am merely pointing ou that it was
> >>> encouraging to see action of any kind - given a chess world
> >>> full of apologists like Larry Parrs and his ilk. These people
> >>> argue that chessplayers (if they are good enough) are on a
> >>> higher plane - unconstrained by the rules made for the rest
> >>> of humanity.
> >> Have there been any serious sociological studies to determine how much
> >> insanity infests the chess world? =A0I imagine it is a fair bit higher
> >> than the norm.
>
> >> I greatly admired Fischer's chess and his fighting spirit (until he lo=
st
> >> it). =A0I also thought he was quite loony as far back as the sixties.
>
> >> On a tangent, I have been musing lately over popular moral judgments
> >> made by many in America. =A0One that interests me is the placement of
> >> Hitler at the bottom of a hypothetical scale of evil -- perhaps joined
> >> by Stalin. =A0It has been said that history is written by the victors =
in
> >> war. =A0What about the losers and their story? =A0Having thoroughly na=
iled
> >> Hitler and Stalin to the base of our totem of evil, can we then turn o=
ur
> >> attention to the victors?
>
> >> I wish I knew more about history. =A0That will have to wait for future
> >> lifetimes.... =A0A scholar seeking approximate moral objectivity towar=
ds
> >> this totem of evil might ask the question, "Who was ultimately
> >> responsible for the tragedies of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire
> >> bombings of Dresden and other German civilian targets." =A0Would that =
be
> >> Truman and Churchill? =A0If so, where should they be placed on the tot=
em
> >> of evil? =A0Or does victory cleanse all stains of evil?
>
> > I do not like to comment on non-chess matters here, but I can't quite
> > let this pass. War-time leaders often must make decisions that must
> > seem horrible even to them, since the death of large numbers of people
> > may depend on their choice. Truman and Churchill, fundamentally good
> > men, faced these difficult decisions many times. We can disagree with
> > their decisions (and I do with some), but it is very easy to see that
> > each was made for what seemed at the time like a morally defensible
> > reason. Horrible as it was, and most of us think it was not justified
> > today because it is so horrible to contemplate, the decision to bomb
> > Hiroshima and Nagasaki was on a calculation that this would save lives
> > (on both sides, even) when compared to an actual invasion of Japan.
> > Well worthy of moral argument, but it was not a decision that should
> > brand the person making it as evil. These decisions were not made
> > simply because the war leaders wanted to see more Germans and Japanese
> > people die.
>
> > Hitler and Stalin are not considered evil because of wartime actions.
> > Yes, the bombing of London (for example) was unprovoked, but this is
> > not why we call Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (and unfortunately we could
> > make a long list here, and there are still world leaders I believe
> > deserve the label today) evil; it was part of a plan to make Britain
> > surrender. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others intentionally killed
> > huge numbers of people in non-war situations, simply out of malice
> > towards their perceived opponents, or to keep people in such a state
> > of fear that nobody would dare to oppose them. This is entirely
> > different than anything Churchil or Truman did, and you should be more
> > cautious before mentioning these as part of the same discussion. It is
> > not a matter only of victory and defeat. Losers of other wars are not
> > raised up as evil monsters. Even if we restrict ourselves to World War
> > II, there is a reason that Hitler is viewed as evil, while Mussolini
> > is merely viewed as reprehensible; you may also notice that the World
> > War I losers are not generally viewed as great evil figures despite
> > (for example) use of mustard gas.
>
> > In my view, one kind of political naivete is to make every political
> > opponent into a monster. I know Republicans and Democrats who see
> > enormous conspiracies of evil on the part of their political opponents
> > in the other party. Although I have strong opinions about some of the
> > political issues, I realize that reasonable arguments can be made on
> > the other side, and I like most Americans realize that neither Obama
> > nor McCain should in any way be viewed as evil people. Another type of
> > political naivete in my view is to think that there are no evil
> > people, and that all world leaders are doing what they feel is best
> > for their countries. Negotiating with Mugabe after he brutalizes his
> > own people to keep power is not the same as negotiating with Indian
> > leaders, no matter how you feel about India's decision to go nuclear.
>
> > OK, time for me to shut up about actually history, which I really know
> > little about. Now if you want to discuss whether Staunton was good or
> > evil, or who deserves blame in the Steinitz vs Zukertort negotiations,
> > then I will happily jump back into the fray.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> Well, I so looked forward to the promised discussion of WWI, and that
> never materialized.
>
> The technologies that were used in the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> as well as the firebombing of German civilian population centers both
> are examples of "weapons of mass destruction" used in a way that should
> cause one to step back and reflect with concern. =A0Before assigning
> personal blame for these acts, it is well to note that by themselves
> they were most terrible crimes against humanity. =A0They were evil, and
> yes, war is hell.
>
> So, if weapons of mass destruction are employed in war -- to terrible
> effect, who is ultimately responsible? =A0If we try to reboot our moral
> compass so that we can see evil no matter what side of a border it lies
> on, or what loyalties are involved, then how should we consider these
> kind of acts?
>
> Today, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has frequently been
> tossed about as justification for going to war in Iraq. =A0It appears to
> me that it was wrongly used by the current US administration to justify
> illegally invading another country, occupying it, and then attempting to
> set up a corrupt puppet government. =A0Meanwhile, I hear that oil
> companies, Haliburton, Black Water and others are enjoying record
> profits while the public coffers are being sacked to finance them.
> Perhaps there is a more noble way to view this, but I haven't found one
> I could believe.
>
> Okay, relating this back to Bobby Fischer. =A0I see no more evil in Bobby
> Fischer's 9/11 outbursts than I do with the spewing you might hear from
> a nut on a soapbox on any corner of Manhattan. =A0It is a shame that his
> remarks were broadcast and amplified by the media. =A0Bobby did not
> firebomb or nuke anyone.
>
> If the USCF had simply made a statement to distance itself from his
> remarks that should have been sufficient. =A0But they took the extra step
> of sanctioning him which was not necessary. =A0On this I agree with Mr. P=
arr.
>
> You may disagree with my views, but if we truly want to deal with moral
> issues, I suggest we look past the ravings of a mentally disturbed chess
> player and seriously consider real problems of our past, and those
> ongoing today.
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



   
Date: 25 Jul 2008 12:50:14
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Jul 25, 1:05=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Kane wrote:
>
> > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> David Kane wrote:
>
> >>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]
> >>>> David Kane wrote:
>
> >>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:[email protected]
>
> >>>>>> The concept of the unfairness of selective moral outrage can be
> >>>>>> difficult to perceive or appreciate -- especially for those caught
> >>>>>> up in it.
>
> >>>>> It's not selective moral outrage, it is just appropriate moral
> >>>>> outrage. You confuse the issue by looking for difficult
> >>>>> gray areas - this is not such a case.
>
> >>>> It appears that you and I are not going to reach a common
> >>>> understanding on this point. =A0I will let it be, and you can go on
> >>>> with your crusade.
>
> >>> And I guess you may continue offering ridiculous excuses for
> >>> horrible behavior.
>
> >> From this statement I take it that you are upset and feeling nasty.
>
> > I see it as an "in kind" response to your "crusade" comment.
>
> >>>>>>> History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
> >>>>>>> chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
> >>>>>>> of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
> >>>>>>> obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
> >>>>>>> Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
> >>>>>>> felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.
>
> >>>>>> My impression was that for a time the media profited off of
> >>>>>> Fischer's bizarreness in the same sense that they did with John
> >>>>>> McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, or Phil Hellmuth. =A0I regard the promotio=
n
> >>>>>> of a "bad boy" image by the media in American sports and gaming as
> >>>>>> a societal character flaw. When he went off the deep end with his
> >>>>>> 9/11 comments, he suddenly became poisonous.
>
> >>>>> This isn't the way it happened. For a long time, Fischer was well
> >>>>> beyond "bizarre" into the realm of offensive hate speech.
> >>>>> The American chess community to a large extent pretended
> >>>>> that it didn't exist (not wanting to burn any bridges lest he
> >>>>> "heroically" return to game one day). His 9/11 comments were so
> >>>>> offensive that they did trigger a response.
>
> >>>> I see that you are very upset both with Fischer and with the
> >>>> American chess community.
>
> >>> Hardly upset. But I do think that the failure to have standards
> >>> of decent human beings (Parr's original point of celebration)
> >>> is certainly nothing to brag about.
>
> >> What are the standards of decent human beings that you refer to? =A0Do
> >> you understand that such a topic is the subject of widespread
> >> differences around the world? =A0Are your standards faith-based or
> >> humanist in nature? How do you propose to advance your concept of
> >> these standards within the American chess community?
>
> > Again, pretending that there are complications when there are none.
>
> I asked a simple question. =A0You ask us to be concerned about standards,
> yet you can not supply us with information about what they are...
>
> > If you want to offer *your* defense of 9/11 and posting widescale
> > obscenity in others' names, feel free to do so. Otherwise, the details
> > of how we arrive at a judgement that, say, mass killing of innocents
> > is wrong, are irrelevant.
>
> I have not defended 9/11 or obscene postings. =A0Quite the opposite. =A0Y=
ou
> need to get your facts straight.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> I do not see how this connects to Mr. Truong. =A0Explain if you wi=
ll.
>
> >>>>> Truong's obscenity-laden posts as the Fake Sam Sloan (and others) a=
re
> >>>>> analogous to Fischer's hate speech. It's conduct.worthy of
> >>>>> condemnation - largely absent.
>
> >>>> The allegations against Mr. Truong are currently in litigation. =A0T=
he
> >>>> system of justice is working in its slow and inexorable fashion. =A0=
I
> >>>> want to wait until we have a result before I venture to make any
> >>>> sort of statement like you have about the allegations.
>
> >>> Sigh. It is amazing that people have such little grasp of the
> >>> purpose of our legal system.
>
> >>> The purpose of the litigation is to determine whether
> >>> Sloan and Gordon should be compensated for their "damages".
> >>> Period. It has *no* relevance to the issue of the American
> >>> chess community and its standards.
>
> >> If the cases are brought to trial there will be opportunities to
> >> uncover facts relevant to chess governance that may otherwise never
> >> come to light. =A0One of the possible outcomes of either of these case=
s
> >> is that one of the plaintiffs may win on one aspect of their case and
> >> be awarded a dollar in damages. =A0I will be most interested to find o=
ut
> >> what happens.
>
> > Hooray for you. It has nothing to do with chess being a community with =
some
> > minimal standards of behavior. That's my objective.
>
> If it is your objective and you want to make a public issue out of it,
> why are you so reluctant to tell us more about these standards of yours?
> =A0 If we take you seriously, how will know how to apply these standards
> to future cases?
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> If, as seems likely, Sloan and Gordon prove not capable
> >>> of competently negotiating the court system, or if the
> >>> damages are deemed negligible, it does not make
> >>> Mr. Truong's behavior less abominable, or worthy of
> >>> condemnation. It just saves him some money.
>
> >> You seem to be in the mood to condemn Mr. Truong and do not believe
> >> that either of the lawsuits serve any of your purposes. =A0What will y=
ou
> >> do, file your own lawsuit?
>
> > I admit I am not a fan of frivolous litigation. I don't believe obscene=
and
> > fraudulent Usenet postings of this type should be a matter of
> > concern to the government. It *should* be a matter of concern to
> > chess players however, because it demonstrates the obvious
> > unfitness of Mr. Truong to act in an executive capacity.
>
> > In this case, the litigants are essentially making a mockery
> > of the legal system, filing mass quanitities of rambling drivel.
> > A properly filed suit would be one thing (I might still be
> > inclined to feel it wasn't an issue for the courts but could
> > respect that others feel differently) This is little more than
> > an insult to the justice system.
>
> So are you saying that in your opinion the allegations against Mr.
> Truong are not properly a matter for the justice system?
>
> Please expand on your proposal for dealing with them.

The only thing that puts the FSS even arguably within the justice
system is the impersonation issue.

Suppose that the FSS had instead made repeated anonymous, disgusting
postings attacking rivals in chess. There would be no legal reason to
try the FSS; in fact, this happens all the time on the net.

Nevertheless, such behavior would still be clearly inappropriate for a
board member of any organization, and any board member of a nonprofit,
whether it was the Red Cross, a university, or the USCF, who was found
to have done this would be asked to resign from the board by the
organization.

How would it be decided whether the board member was guilty? The exact
mechanism depends on the organization. Generally, a board member of a
nonprofit who was given evidence that he was guilty of such actions
would either

a) Resign from the board; quite likely either accompanied by either an
apology for actions bringing the organization into disrepute or a
statement that they were innocent but did not want the organization
distracted by these charges

or

b) Give some form of refutation of the charges

A simple statement that the charges were false without giving members
of the organization reasons to believe that the charges were false is
not usual, nor is it good for the organization.

Nobody would deny that the person has the legal right to continue to
sit on the board even if charged with extraordinarily disreputable but
not illegal behavior. Members also have the legal right to use
standard mechanisms, such as recalls, to remove members from the
board. They can do it if they simply do not like a policy, or because
they think the person is discrediting the organization.

I actually thought that Paul Truong would step down or at least offer
to temporarily step down until his name was cleared a long time ago.
Since he seemed disinclined to give out evidence which would clear him
from the charges (evidence that he has repeatedly claimed to have), it
only continues to tarnish his image. If he made the statement that he
would be shown to be innocent but his lawyers had advised him not to
give exonerating information until the case came to trial, and did not
want this to distract from the goals of the organization, more people
would have been willing to wait until the end of the court case before
judging him. As it is, since it is harming the organization to have
someone who many people believe (as the result of what looks like
convincing and unrefuted evidence) has done something very
disreputable sit on the board, we are forced to use our own judgment
to determine whether his behavior makes him a suitable board member.

Frankly, it is hard to see the benefit of remaining on the board; it
isn't good for him or the USCF.

But to cut a long answer short: Take away the impersonation, and there
would be no court case. However, it would still be a situation where
we would have to judge his guilt. As was pointed out, we may well end
up in this situation anyway, since the court cases on the matter may
be dismissed because of glaring technical flaws in the filings. That
wouldn't make the accused any more guilty or innocent of the charges,
however.

Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> If the two cases are dismissed, I will be deeply disappointed. =A0I
> >>>> see them as an opportunity to bring to light information regarding
> >>>> why there is so much strife in US chess governance.
>
> >>>> The USCF imposter, whoever he and/or she is finally judged to be,
> >>>> did real damage to the US chess community. =A0If I were on a jury th=
at
> >>>> had determined guilt, I would be hoping for the maximum civil or
> >>>> criminal penalties, as the case may be, allowed by law.
>
> >>>> I do not see an analogy where you do between Fischer's behavior and
> >>>> that of the USCF impostor. =A0Even if there were some kind of analog=
y,
> >>>> that is not a causal relationship. =A0However, the actions of the US=
CF
> >>>> impostor appear to have upset you to a like degree.
>
> >>> Again, not so much as the American chess community's
> >>> lacking standards that decent human being should have.
> >>> By not holding chessplayers to standards that virtually
> >>> everybody else must adhere to, is harmful.
>
> >> Again, you seem to be deeply upset about the standards issue and how
> >> it relates to the chess community. =A0What are these standards? =A0How=
do
> >> you propose to advance your interpretation of desirable human behavior
> >> within this community?
>
> > Again, if you want to offer *your* defense of 9/11 or posting widescale
> > obscenity in others' names, feel free to do so. Otherwise, the details
> > of how we arrive at a judgement that, say, mass killing of innocents
> > is wrong, are irrelevant.
>
> > Pointing out that theoretically there could be gray areas is not a
> > valid reason to never do anything. You've used that faulty logic
> > a number of times now - perhaps you'd do better reflecting
> > on your error than worrying about whether or not I am "upset".
>
> Again, I have not defended 9/11 or obscene postings. =A0Quite the
> opposite. =A0You need to get your facts straight.
>
> Do you really have anything of substance to say about standards in chess
> communities or is this just frustrated venting?
>
> >>>>> Chess declares itself as a community without standards. That
> >>>>> does it no good. Or even worse, if I understand you correctly,
> >>>>> you consider the lack of standards a virtue to be touted.
>
> >>>> I do not believe that it is the role of gaming organizations to
> >>>> engage in mock judicial proceedings against people who are not
> >>>> members of the organization.
>
> >>> Anything goes. Right?
>
> >> Is this part of your standards?
>
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker- 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: 25 Jul 2008 15:24:45
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:50:14 -0700 (PDT),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>But to cut a long answer short: Take away the impersonation, and there
>would be no court case. However, it would still be a situation where
>we would have to judge his guilt. As was pointed out, we may well end
>up in this situation anyway, since the court cases on the matter may
>be dismissed because of glaring technical flaws in the filings. That
>wouldn't make the accused any more guilty or innocent of the charges,
>however.

Whether or not the FSS was (largely) PT or somebody else, I believe it
no accident that the overwhelming majority of the fake posts utilized
the RSS or GRP. The FSS could be reasonably sure neither victim had
the resources to hire professional representation in their legal
maneuverings, both seem to have a rather sorry record of pro se
activity, and widespread antipathy toward them in the chess community
rendered unlikely any groundswell of public support for their cause.

I suspect the FSS didn't count on somebody with Mottershead's skills
deciding to jump in. His entry turned the little charade from a joke
into a problem, and Mottershead seems to have largely survived the
vicious attempts to smear him.

But, as time passes, I'm more and more believing the FSS will escape
formal punishment. Even if, as both of us believe, the evidence
against PT is compelling, and nothing new turns up to clear him, he
still has (1) the resources of a famous partner who many people fear
to antagonize, (2) a dedicated coterie of bloggers, apologists and web
monkeys who, probably flattered by the attentions of a famous chess
couple, beat the drums continuously on their behalf. Not only that,
(3) there's a whole raft of people who believe the whole thing is bad
for chess and wish it would go away, and (4) there are others who hate
RSS, GRP, and Lafferty (and various others who have championed the
Mottershead investigation and report) more than they are offended by
the FSS.

The legal maneuverings by Sloan and Parker give the PT defenders a
nice way to stall things out indefinitely while not appearing the
outright toadies. "We need to wait until legal proceedings run their
course," they righteously opine, knowing full well these things will
drag on long enough to make the whole thing moot.


     
Date: 25 Jul 2008 17:50:46
From: Thom E. Geiger
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:24:45 -0700, Mike Murray
<[email protected] > wrote:

I said I would stay out of the kooksoot chess fight, but...

>(4) there are others who hate
>RSS, GRP, and Lafferty (and various others who have championed the
>Mottershead investigation and report) more than they are offended by
>the FSS.

Personally, I don't give a coontail shit about the FSS, Lafferty,
Sloan or the "couple", but now that you mention it in the way you did,
the same can be said as;

>(4) there are others who hate HC and TEB (and others who have championed the
>safety and welfare of young children, to be safe from internet predators) more than they are offended by
>GRP.

How's that?

>
>>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #121 Of infinity
>>Subject: Dominqiue Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #124 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #125 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #130 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #133 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Homsexual #1 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is NOT A Homsexual #1 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #6 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #11 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #12 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #13 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #14 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #15 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #16 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #18 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #15 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #16 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #17 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Brian RAPED Dominique?
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #18 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #20 of Infinity
>>This post will not be removed, EVER.
>>It is Amanda's reward for her fans' ongoing harassment of me. She's
>>lesbian; it's the truth. She threatened to KILL a reporter over it.
>>This is not a very nice little dyke, now is it? Nope.
>>To those gloating over my website, don't sweat it, it will be up shortly.
>> The rewards for the harassment against our web provider will be dished
>>out soon enough.
>>Subject: Kristy Powell: Gymnastics BUM
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #21 Of Infinity
>>The credit for this one (and the ones which will follow this one every
>>day) goes to [email protected]
>>In case Patty asks. Here is the post that triggered it:
>>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG ADDICT #2 Of Infinity
>>You want me off your backs? Clean up the mess you created, and I'll be
>>out of your way........these lies are YOURS.
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #23 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG ADDICT #4 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #24 Of infinity
>>Her mom's an office whore, btw, and even admitted that she would not have
>>her job if she were male.
>>I hate cowardly WHORES who work for child abusers like Dimitry and Bela
>>and try to harm people like Dominique.
>>You should be ashamed of yourself, Kris.......God hates people like you.
>>This post series will NOT stop. Period. And Kris, your mom is garbage.
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #25 Of Infinity
>>these posts had stopped but good old Rinky-Dinky had to start up
>>again....sad.
>>Subject: More Harassment From Amanda The DYKE
>>This is typical of that piece of shit Amanda WHOREDEN.
>>Subject: Gymcats Is An Abusive Gym
>>Subject: Kaitie Dyson: Lying Little Piece Of Shit
>>Subject: Gymcats = INCOMPETENT CHILD ABUSERS
>>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG ADDICT #5 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Michelle Campi Is A Child Abuser #1 Of Infinity
>>This posting series will not stop either until what I'm getting from USAG
>>and others associated with it stops.
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #26 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #131 Of Infinity
>>This post goes down when Steelking's identity is revealed to me.....
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #132 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #133 Of Infinity
>>This post is put here in protest of the "Elite Gymnastics Mafia" website.
>> It will be reposted EVERY DAY until that website, put up as a tool for
>>slandering me, is removed.
>>It's pretty simple: want the posts to stop? Take the site down. Want
>>them to continue? Leave the site up.
>>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG ADDICT #9 Of Infinity
>>This post is put here in protest of the "Elite Gymnastics Mafia" website.
>> It will be reposted EVERY DAY until that website, put up as a tool for
>>slandering me, is removed.
>>It's pretty simple: want the posts to stop? Take the site down. Want
>>them to continue? Leave the site up.
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #134 Of Infinity
>>When the "Official Gymnastics Mafia" website is taken down, these posts
>>will stop.
>>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG ADDICT #10 Of Infinity
>>She is another one who uses the "Official Gymnastics Mafia" to harass her
>>critics and to to do things that would harm her image if known.
>>Subject: WHEN Atler Falls On Bars At Worlds (She WILL!)
>>I'm gonna LAUGH...
>>Subject: Gymcats Abuses Kids And NO ONE CARES (Was: Re: question
>> for the group)
>>Subject: Gymcats Is An Abusive Gym #2 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #138 Of Infinity
>>The post below challenged me. This is what I think of Rinky's little
>>challenge.
>>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG Addict #12 Of Infinity
>>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #142 Of Infinity
>
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.gymnastics/msg/eb665e29ef7ea9bc?dmode=source&hl=en
>
>
>From: [email protected] (Ray Gordon)
>Subject: Re: NOTICE - Please read
>Date: 1997/12/16
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>X-Deja-AN: 298822928
>References: <[email protected]>
>X-Server-Date: 16 Dec 1997 22:06:33 GMT
>Organization: ICN
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>Newsgroups: alt.sports.gymnastics,soc.singles,alt.hypnosis,alt.hypnosis.hypnotherapy
>
>
>Please forgive Dr. Thornley. A year ago, his newborn daughter chose
>to return to God rather than be raised by his pathetic self.
>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>DMIsAHussy: I'm about to destroy someone because of all of you
>>DMIsAHussy: A girl who's sex life is about to be made public
>>DMIsAHussy: When her father finds out he's gonna kill her
>>DMIsAHussy: Because you guys say I'm lousy
>>DMIsAHussy: But don't blame me
>>DMIsAHussy: I've been provoked one too many times


Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com

Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.

Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.


      
Date: 25 Jul 2008 16:13:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:50:46 -0500, Thom E. Geiger
<[email protected] > wrote:

>>(4) there are others who hate
>>RSS, GRP, and Lafferty (and various others who have championed the
>>Mottershead investigation and report) more than they are offended by
>>the FSS.

>Personally, I don't give a coontail shit about the FSS, Lafferty,
>Sloan or the "couple", but now that you mention it in the way you did,
>the same can be said as;

>>(4) there are others who hate HC and TEB (and others who have championed the
>>safety and welfare of young children, to be safe from internet predators) more than they are offended by
>>GRP.

>How's that?

Yup. I'm sure the FSS/FGRP was aware of these opinions. That's why
the FSS believed faking GRP was a safe bet.


   
Date: 23 Jul 2008 10:08:46
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:35 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Jul 22, 4:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> David Kane wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:05:24 -0700, "David Kane"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]m...
>>>>>>>> In many ways Bobby put himself beyond the pale
>>>>>>>> of decent men, but that does not mean his membership
>>>>>>>> in the USCF should have been revoked.
>>>>>>> As usual, Parr understands nothing. Fischer is known to the
>>>>>>> world solely because he played chess very well. When
>>>>>>> he was celebrating the terrorist actions, that reflects poorly
>>>>>>> on chessplayers as a group. (We, of course, know that
>>>>>>> Fischer had been nuts for a long time, but there are
>>>>>>> many who know the Fischer name, but not his mental
>>>>>>> history)
>>>>>> I think anybody who listened to the broadcast, or read transcripts of
>>>>>> it would have to have been aware of his mental condition.
>>>>> Perhaps. But stories like this can spread without the full
>>>>> context.
>>>>> "Did you hear that chessplayer Bobby
>>>>> Fischer applauded 9/11?"
>>>>> Though the numbers may not be great in either case, I'd
>>>>> be willing to bet that the number who heard something
>>>>> like my sentence above far outnumbered those who
>>>>> listened to the broadcast in full.
>>>>>>> What the USCF did was a symbolic gesture distancing
>>>>>>> itself from his words. It had no practical impact (Fischer
>>>>>>> not having been a member for decades) but simply
>>>>>>> showed that he did not speak for the American chess
>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>> It's kinda like a poetry society disowning Ezra Pound. Alternatives
>>>>>> were possible, such as a USCF statement deploring Fischer's remarks.
>>>>> No doubt you are right - I am not micro-analyzing every
>>>>> aspect of the resolution. I am merely pointing ou that it was
>>>>> encouraging to see action of any kind - given a chess world
>>>>> full of apologists like Larry Parrs and his ilk. These people
>>>>> argue that chessplayers (if they are good enough) are on a
>>>>> higher plane - unconstrained by the rules made for the rest
>>>>> of humanity.
>>>> Have there been any serious sociological studies to determine how much
>>>> insanity infests the chess world? I imagine it is a fair bit higher
>>>> than the norm.
>>>> I greatly admired Fischer's chess and his fighting spirit (until he lost
>>>> it). I also thought he was quite loony as far back as the sixties.
>>>> On a tangent, I have been musing lately over popular moral judgments
>>>> made by many in America. One that interests me is the placement of
>>>> Hitler at the bottom of a hypothetical scale of evil -- perhaps joined
>>>> by Stalin. It has been said that history is written by the victors in
>>>> war. What about the losers and their story? Having thoroughly nailed
>>>> Hitler and Stalin to the base of our totem of evil, can we then turn our
>>>> attention to the victors?
>>>> I wish I knew more about history. That will have to wait for future
>>>> lifetimes.... A scholar seeking approximate moral objectivity towards
>>>> this totem of evil might ask the question, "Who was ultimately
>>>> responsible for the tragedies of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire
>>>> bombings of Dresden and other German civilian targets." Would that be
>>>> Truman and Churchill? If so, where should they be placed on the totem
>>>> of evil? Or does victory cleanse all stains of evil?
>>> I do not like to comment on non-chess matters here, but I can't quite
>>> let this pass. War-time leaders often must make decisions that must
>>> seem horrible even to them, since the death of large numbers of people
>>> may depend on their choice. Truman and Churchill, fundamentally good
>>> men, faced these difficult decisions many times. We can disagree with
>>> their decisions (and I do with some), but it is very easy to see that
>>> each was made for what seemed at the time like a morally defensible
>>> reason. Horrible as it was, and most of us think it was not justified
>>> today because it is so horrible to contemplate, the decision to bomb
>>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki was on a calculation that this would save lives
>>> (on both sides, even) when compared to an actual invasion of Japan.
>>> Well worthy of moral argument, but it was not a decision that should
>>> brand the person making it as evil. These decisions were not made
>>> simply because the war leaders wanted to see more Germans and Japanese
>>> people die.
>>> Hitler and Stalin are not considered evil because of wartime actions.
>>> Yes, the bombing of London (for example) was unprovoked, but this is
>>> not why we call Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (and unfortunately we could
>>> make a long list here, and there are still world leaders I believe
>>> deserve the label today) evil; it was part of a plan to make Britain
>>> surrender. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others intentionally killed
>>> huge numbers of people in non-war situations, simply out of malice
>>> towards their perceived opponents, or to keep people in such a state
>>> of fear that nobody would dare to oppose them. This is entirely
>>> different than anything Churchil or Truman did, and you should be more
>>> cautious before mentioning these as part of the same discussion. It is
>>> not a matter only of victory and defeat. Losers of other wars are not
>>> raised up as evil monsters. Even if we restrict ourselves to World War
>>> II, there is a reason that Hitler is viewed as evil, while Mussolini
>>> is merely viewed as reprehensible; you may also notice that the World
>>> War I losers are not generally viewed as great evil figures despite
>>> (for example) use of mustard gas.
>>> In my view, one kind of political naivete is to make every political
>>> opponent into a monster. I know Republicans and Democrats who see
>>> enormous conspiracies of evil on the part of their political opponents
>>> in the other party. Although I have strong opinions about some of the
>>> political issues, I realize that reasonable arguments can be made on
>>> the other side, and I like most Americans realize that neither Obama
>>> nor McCain should in any way be viewed as evil people. Another type of
>>> political naivete in my view is to think that there are no evil
>>> people, and that all world leaders are doing what they feel is best
>>> for their countries. Negotiating with Mugabe after he brutalizes his
>>> own people to keep power is not the same as negotiating with Indian
>>> leaders, no matter how you feel about India's decision to go nuclear.
>>> OK, time for me to shut up about actually history, which I really know
>>> little about. Now if you want to discuss whether Staunton was good or
>>> evil, or who deserves blame in the Steinitz vs Zukertort negotiations,
>>> then I will happily jump back into the fray.
>>> Jerry Spinrad
>> Well, I so looked forward to the promised discussion of WWI, and that
>> never materialized.
>>
>> The technologies that were used in the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
>> as well as the firebombing of German civilian population centers both
>> are examples of "weapons of mass destruction" used in a way that should
>> cause one to step back and reflect with concern. Before assigning
>> personal blame for these acts, it is well to note that by themselves
>> they were most terrible crimes against humanity. They were evil, and
>> yes, war is hell.
>>
>> So, if weapons of mass destruction are employed in war -- to terrible
>> effect, who is ultimately responsible? If we try to reboot our moral
>> compass so that we can see evil no matter what side of a border it lies
>> on, or what loyalties are involved, then how should we consider these
>> kind of acts?
>>
>> Today, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has frequently been
>> tossed about as justification for going to war in Iraq. It appears to
>> me that it was wrongly used by the current US administration to justify
>> illegally invading another country, occupying it, and then attempting to
>> set up a corrupt puppet government. Meanwhile, I hear that oil
>> companies, Haliburton, Black Water and others are enjoying record
>> profits while the public coffers are being sacked to finance them.
>> Perhaps there is a more noble way to view this, but I haven't found one
>> I could believe.
>>
>> Okay, relating this back to Bobby Fischer. I see no more evil in Bobby
>> Fischer's 9/11 outbursts than I do with the spewing you might hear from
>> a nut on a soapbox on any corner of Manhattan. It is a shame that his
>> remarks were broadcast and amplified by the media. Bobby did not
>> firebomb or nuke anyone.
>>
>> If the USCF had simply made a statement to distance itself from his
>> remarks that should have been sufficient. But they took the extra step
>> of sanctioning him which was not necessary. On this I agree with Mr. Parr.
>>
>> You may disagree with my views, but if we truly want to deal with moral
>> issues, I suggest we look past the ravings of a mentally disturbed chess
>> player and seriously consider real problems of our past, and those
>> ongoing today.
>> --
>>
>> "Do that which is right..."
>>
>> Rev. J.D. Walker- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

> I will be happy to continue this discussion in private email, if you
> are interested; I believe that some of your statements are good
> example of what I called political naivete. I don't think this is the
> correct forum for general political discussion, however.

Thank you for the offer, but I am not interested in a private
discussion. I do think this is the correct thread to discuss this in as
we are talking about an event where Bobby Fischer made rash political
statements that resulted in moral outrage. Then the USCF decided to not
only repudiate his remarks but also to punish him...

Several aspects of this interest me.

1) The notion of moral relativism.
2) Insanity amongst chess players.
3) Chess governance regarding political speech.

Now that we, in the US, live under a government that promotes torture by
redefining it, I believe it is a good time for moral reflection.
Perhaps you think this is politically naive also.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


    
Date: 23 Jul 2008 15:46:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Thank you for the offer, but I am not interested in a private discussion.
> I do think this is the correct thread to discuss this in as we are talking
> about an event where Bobby Fischer made rash political statements that
> resulted in moral outrage. Then the USCF decided to not only repudiate
> his remarks but also to punish him...
>
> Several aspects of this interest me.

I observe that the subject now interests many people.

> 1) The notion of moral relativism.

I should like a better notion of what 'moral' means, if it does not mean
'mores' as in what is customary or habitual. Is the intent instead to say
'ethical', being a degree of /consciously/ adhered-to electional standard?

> 2) Insanity amongst chess players.

Many write of 'insanity' in a non-compos-mentes way. What does the term mean
here? It evidentally has nought to do with the normally celebrated
inabilitly to achieve left-brain sequencing. Has it to do with emotional
stressing? One comparison is post-combat fatigue syndrome.

> 3) Chess governance regarding political speech.

A much broader issue, very much broader. Worth discussion, IMO.

Despite, or pending, my own equivocations to terms used above, I think that,
in intent, the writer proposes a prospective agenda

> Now that we, in the US, live under a government that promotes torture by
> redefining it, I believe it is a good time for moral reflection. Perhaps
> you think this is politically naive also.

Whether tis politically naive or abandonment of individual conscience, and
their relation one to another - shall we discuss both? After all, the
original and Constitutional 'freedom of speech' was granted within the
context of being able to speak one's religious conscience [that is, one's
duty to God not the state], and definitely not 'the freedom' to arrantly
speculate on the slightest thing that enters one's mind.

A good post.

Phil Innes

>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker




     
Date: 23 Jul 2008 14:15:13
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> Thank you for the offer, but I am not interested in a private discussion.
>> I do think this is the correct thread to discuss this in as we are talking
>> about an event where Bobby Fischer made rash political statements that
>> resulted in moral outrage. Then the USCF decided to not only repudiate
>> his remarks but also to punish him...
>>
>> Several aspects of this interest me.
>
> I observe that the subject now interests many people.
>
>> 1) The notion of moral relativism.
>
> I should like a better notion of what 'moral' means, if it does not mean
> 'mores' as in what is customary or habitual. Is the intent instead to say
> 'ethical', being a degree of /consciously/ adhered-to electional standard?

After examining a discussion of Descriptive Moral Relativism and
Metaethical Moral Relativism at

[ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ ]

I believe my meaning is better served by instead referring to item #2 of
the definition of /morality/ I find at

[ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ ].

"2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."

The "given specified conditions" phrase is tricky. Hypothetically, if I
place an innocent but intelligent group of persons in a room to observe
objective documentaries that focused on the attacks and immediate
aftermath of both the nuking of Nagasaki and the 9/11 attacks on the US,
how will they react in terms of moral outrage to each?

>> 2) Insanity amongst chess players.
>
> Many write of 'insanity' in a non-compos-mentes way. What does the term mean
> here? It evidentally has nought to do with the normally celebrated
> inabilitly to achieve left-brain sequencing. Has it to do with emotional
> stressing? One comparison is post-combat fatigue syndrome.

I have no special idea of what insanity means here -- just a common
everyday meaning. I am interested in learning more on this topic if it
turns up in one of these discussions.

>> 3) Chess governance regarding political speech.

To what extent do we want the political, or even commercial worlds to
intrude on our world of chess? Some of us (including me) regard chess
as a separate world that is a refuge from much of the stress and
insanity (common meaning) of the world of daily life and all of its
troubles.

Censoring, or punishing political speech has no place in my version of
the chess world. Neither does regulation by drug testing.

> A much broader issue, very much broader. Worth discussion, IMO.
>
> Despite, or pending, my own equivocations to terms used above, I think that,
> in intent, the writer proposes a prospective agenda
>
>> Now that we, in the US, live under a government that promotes torture by
>> redefining it, I believe it is a good time for moral reflection. Perhaps
>> you think this is politically naive also.
>
> Whether tis politically naive or abandonment of individual conscience, and
> their relation one to another - shall we discuss both? After all, the
> original and Constitutional 'freedom of speech' was granted within the
> context of being able to speak one's religious conscience [that is, one's
> duty to God not the state], and definitely not 'the freedom' to arrantly
> speculate on the slightest thing that enters one's mind.

Indeed, the phrase the "abandonment of individual conscience" captures
well part of my concerns. Will a nation of robotic sheep ever be able
to evaluate moral enigmas with any confidence in their conclusions?
Combine that condition with fear of personal safety and you have a
formula for eliminating liberty.

> A good post.
>
> Phil Innes
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


      
Date: 24 Jul 2008 10:15:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Chess One wrote:
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>> Thank you for the offer, but I am not interested in a private
>>> discussion. I do think this is the correct thread to discuss this in as
>>> we are talking about an event where Bobby Fischer made rash political
>>> statements that resulted in moral outrage. Then the USCF decided to not
>>> only repudiate his remarks but also to punish him...
>>>
>>> Several aspects of this interest me.
>>
>> I observe that the subject now interests many people.
>>
>>> 1) The notion of moral relativism.
>>
>> I should like a better notion of what 'moral' means, if it does not mean
>> 'mores' as in what is customary or habitual. Is the intent instead to say
>> 'ethical', being a degree of /consciously/ adhered-to electional
>> standard?
>
> After examining a discussion of Descriptive Moral Relativism and
> Metaethical Moral Relativism at
>
> [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ ]
>
> I believe my meaning is better served by instead referring to item #2 of
> the definition of /morality/ I find at
>
> [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ ].
>
> "2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."

Ah! Well, thank you for this distinction. It seems to accord better with my
[my Greek!] sense of Ethics, being consciously held standards.

Mores, or morals, have of themselves no standard as such. In philosophy it
merely indicates whatever is habit, whether that habit is good or bad.

Anyway, my question aimed to distinguish your intended use of a word, which
has unfortunately become synonymous with ethics. Should you concur then
perhaps the offending sentence could be reviewed...?

"Bobby Fischer made rash political statements that resulted in moral
outrage"

In this instance both mores and ethics are invoked, since mores/moral is
merely to observe what were people's reactions. The trick is that 'outrage'.
I suggest that Fischer did not hold the ethical standard that the public
did - specifically, in times of tragedy he mocked those who suffered it,
rather than, for example attaining an emotional sobriety which, at least for
some people, allowed them to reflect on how the tragedy came about. Fischer
seemed to rather celebrate by blaming, rather than aught else.

Is that a [long-winded] but sufficient dilation of the issue, in your
opinion?

> The "given specified conditions" phrase is tricky. Hypothetically, if I
> place an innocent but intelligent group of persons in a room to observe
> objective documentaries that focused on the attacks and immediate
> aftermath of both the nuking of Nagasaki and the 9/11 attacks on the US,
> how will they react in terms of moral outrage to each?

Given my comments above - are their not 2 elements, the moral [or ethical in
this case] sense of things, and the 'outrage' reaction to shock, pain, loss
of life? Both these seem coincident, yet can be separated.

I suppose that a further definition of moral outrage is necessary, since it
can also be used as self-justifying hatred against the instigators of
commentors of the event.

>>> 2) Insanity amongst chess players.
>>
>> Many write of 'insanity' in a non-compos-mentes way. What does the term
>> mean here? It evidentally has nought to do with the normally celebrated
>> inabilitly to achieve left-brain sequencing. Has it to do with emotional
>> stressing? One comparison is post-combat fatigue syndrome.
>
> I have no special idea of what insanity means here -- just a common
> everyday meaning. I am interested in learning more on this topic if it
> turns up in one of these discussions.

There is indeed a myth of mental illness - most things of that nature might
better be termed emotional illness or disorders. To say mental suggests a
failure of normal left-sequencing, as in speech or numeracy - yet this is
rarely the intent of those who proclaim 'mental illness.'

Whereas, the disturbance or disorder seems to act on the emotional body so
that it temporarily or continuously becomes dissasociated with those leaving
forces of the whole person. The effect is an obsessional reaction made from
what has made one suffer.

I am not sure if these conditions are more prevalent among chess players
than other groupings of people = but the danger in chess is that one would
repress the emotional life at the expense of the intellectual life. In fact,
Mark Taimanov told me this, and thet he did not envy the 'brittle' state of
many young chess players who, though brilliant, 'only' had chess.

For himself he said that chess provided intellectual expression and
creativity, but emotional engagement with music provided him a spiritual
life.

>>> 3) Chess governance regarding political speech.
>
> To what extent do we want the political, or even commercial worlds to
> intrude on our world of chess? Some of us (including me) regard chess as
> a separate world that is a refuge from much of the stress and insanity
> (common meaning) of the world of daily life and all of its troubles.
>
> Censoring, or punishing political speech has no place in my version of the
> chess world. Neither does regulation by drug testing.

Interesting and clearly put. Since I see Churchill mentioned elsewhere in
these threads, it is interesting that Orwell actually supported him in WWII,
since he proposed that such as you write above is all very well, except that
if the excluded party [Nazism] would by being included extinguish the rights
of others to their own expression.

That would be a necessary caveat I would like make to your otherwise
a-political comment.

Since the direct topic is Fischer it may be worth mentioning a specific: His
Yugo match with Spassky was clearly in violation of the Governments edict
[that is to say, not the government, but an executive order.]

That would indicate censorship of Fischer's right to express himself in his
own medium, the otherwise apolitical one of playing chess.

My sense of Fischer is that he meant what he said when uttering that he
believed in pawns, not psychology - and he might have added politics too.
Did Fischer actually feel that he was an a-political ambassador, and with
Spassky would celebrate a /ritual/ conflict, instead of what was going on
around them, a real and bloody one?

Did Fischer in his own mind adopt a culturally accepted means to express
aggression - and consider that SUPERIOR to what the politicians and generals
had achieved?

I think a literary parallel would be Falstaff - often called a coward, yet
in his musing he did not see why he should waste his life, or anyone else's
running around and for the best possible reasons slaughtering his own
contrymen. Falstaff is said to be the first modern man, in a psychological
sense, to emerge in literature.

NOW - that is again long-winded. BUT - if you agree it can be so, then does
it provide an understanding of the origin of Fischer's emotional wound - the
same one we all have, but which since his relative prominance in another
rapprochment in the Cold War in Iceland, eventually destabilised him? Did he
feel no sympathic voices at home, and in his own terms, did he feel that he
acted with the courage of his own convictions to try and wage peace?

I should stop here, since no doubt others will want to make their own
comments.

Cordially, Phil Innes

>> A much broader issue, very much broader. Worth discussion, IMO.
>>
>> Despite, or pending, my own equivocations to terms used above, I think
>> that, in intent, the writer proposes a prospective agenda
>>
>>> Now that we, in the US, live under a government that promotes torture by
>>> redefining it, I believe it is a good time for moral reflection. Perhaps
>>> you think this is politically naive also.
>>
>> Whether tis politically naive or abandonment of individual conscience,
>> and their relation one to another - shall we discuss both? After all, the
>> original and Constitutional 'freedom of speech' was granted within the
>> context of being able to speak one's religious conscience [that is, one's
>> duty to God not the state], and definitely not 'the freedom' to arrantly
>> speculate on the slightest thing that enters one's mind.
>
> Indeed, the phrase the "abandonment of individual conscience" captures
> well part of my concerns. Will a nation of robotic sheep ever be able to
> evaluate moral enigmas with any confidence in their conclusions? Combine
> that condition with fear of personal safety and you have a formula for
> eliminating liberty.
>
>> A good post.
>>
>> Phil Innes
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker




      
Date: 23 Jul 2008 17:33:00
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:15:13 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:


>I believe my meaning is better served by instead referring to item #2 of
>the definition of /morality/ I find at

>[ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ ].

>"2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
>conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."

>The "given specified conditions" phrase is tricky. Hypothetically, if I
>place an innocent but intelligent group of persons in a room to observe
>objective documentaries that focused on the attacks and immediate
>aftermath of both the nuking of Nagasaki and the 9/11 attacks on the US,
>how will they react in terms of moral outrage to each?

The tacit assumption is that "innocent but intelligent group of
persons" is from our day and age and with a similar educational,
social and familial background to our own. Biblical Hebrews, First
Century Romans, 13th century Mongols, 20th Century Nazis, 19th century
American generals ("nits make lice", "let God sort 'em out") might
think it quite moral to celebrate the slaughter of enemies. A fair
number of "hard-nosed" types from our own society might reference
"collateral damage".

There's virtually no act, no matter how outrageous it may appear to us
that hasn't been considered moral by intelligent men, innocent by
their own standards, somewhere, sometime. Think of Socrates, for
example, reaming out a hapless nitwit who reported his father for
beating a slave to death. Think of Moses, demanding the slaughter of
women and young boys.

IMO, "morality" is merely strongly held human preference. It varies
from time to time and from society to society for a variety of
reasons, and does not exist over and above these preferences. The
touchstone by which we evaluate the moral systems of others turns out
to be our own hearthstone.

We can reason about and predict consequences of actions, but it's
quite possible that what we would call a moral act will produce
situations we abhor, and that an immoral act will produce consequences
we think are fine.

Ask the philosophers, "what is the ontological status of the good"?
And watch 'em shuffle and dance.



       
Date: 23 Jul 2008 18:22:10
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:15:13 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I believe my meaning is better served by instead referring to item #2 of
>> the definition of /morality/ I find at
>
>> [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ ].
>
>> "2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
>> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."
>
>> The "given specified conditions" phrase is tricky. Hypothetically, if I
>> place an innocent but intelligent group of persons in a room to observe
>> objective documentaries that focused on the attacks and immediate
>> aftermath of both the nuking of Nagasaki and the 9/11 attacks on the US,
>> how will they react in terms of moral outrage to each?
>
> The tacit assumption is that "innocent but intelligent group of
> persons" is from our day and age and with a similar educational,
> social and familial background to our own. Biblical Hebrews, First
> Century Romans, 13th century Mongols, 20th Century Nazis, 19th century
> American generals ("nits make lice", "let God sort 'em out") might
> think it quite moral to celebrate the slaughter of enemies. A fair
> number of "hard-nosed" types from our own society might reference
> "collateral damage".
>
> There's virtually no act, no matter how outrageous it may appear to us
> that hasn't been considered moral by intelligent men, innocent by
> their own standards, somewhere, sometime. Think of Socrates, for
> example, reaming out a hapless nitwit who reported his father for
> beating a slave to death. Think of Moses, demanding the slaughter of
> women and young boys.
>
> IMO, "morality" is merely strongly held human preference. It varies
> from time to time and from society to society for a variety of
> reasons, and does not exist over and above these preferences. The
> touchstone by which we evaluate the moral systems of others turns out
> to be our own hearthstone.
>
> We can reason about and predict consequences of actions, but it's
> quite possible that what we would call a moral act will produce
> situations we abhor, and that an immoral act will produce consequences
> we think are fine.
>
> Ask the philosophers, "what is the ontological status of the good"?
> And watch 'em shuffle and dance.
>

The article at the plato site that I gave a link to is rather lengthy
and considers many aspects of morality. Later in the article the author
attempts to produce a synthesis of his philosophical findings regarding
normative morality in the form of a new definition:

"Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons,
governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or
harm as its goal."

If this definition is accepted, then one can examine the existence and
health of the public system in a particular context. If a given society
has problems with apathy, fear, and stifled communications we might
expect that the attendant public system of morality might be in poor
shape, or even dead.

Phil uses the phrase "abandonment of individual conscience" which
strikes a chord with me. How often have we read about alienation, lack
of concern for our neighbors and so on in our society? Interesting as
it is to me, this does threaten to wander pretty far afield from our
news group topics. But it does have a connection with the discussion of
Bobby Fischer's post 9/11 comments.

Since when is it the role of our USCF to make moral judgments about the
political speech of people who are not even members of the organization?
And what gives them the right to pronounce the sentence of
symbolically exiling this man who is not a member? What is next, are
they going to wear white sheets and burn crosses the next time they get
excited? This is not the kind of chess organization I want to join.

Bobby is dead. He lived a very disturbed life. He was brilliant at
chess. That is enough. Let him rest in peace.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


        
Date: 24 Jul 2008 01:50:38
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Mike Murray wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:15:13 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I believe my meaning is better served by instead referring to item #2 of the
>>> definition of /morality/ I find at
>>
>>> [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ ].
>>
>>> "2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
>>> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."
>>
>>> The "given specified conditions" phrase is tricky. Hypothetically, if I
>>> place an innocent but intelligent group of persons in a room to observe
>>> objective documentaries that focused on the attacks and immediate aftermath
>>> of both the nuking of Nagasaki and the 9/11 attacks on the US, how will they
>>> react in terms of moral outrage to each?
>>
>> The tacit assumption is that "innocent but intelligent group of
>> persons" is from our day and age and with a similar educational,
>> social and familial background to our own. Biblical Hebrews, First
>> Century Romans, 13th century Mongols, 20th Century Nazis, 19th century
>> American generals ("nits make lice", "let God sort 'em out") might
>> think it quite moral to celebrate the slaughter of enemies. A fair
>> number of "hard-nosed" types from our own society might reference
>> "collateral damage".
>>
>> There's virtually no act, no matter how outrageous it may appear to us
>> that hasn't been considered moral by intelligent men, innocent by
>> their own standards, somewhere, sometime. Think of Socrates, for
>> example, reaming out a hapless nitwit who reported his father for
>> beating a slave to death. Think of Moses, demanding the slaughter of
>> women and young boys.
>>
>> IMO, "morality" is merely strongly held human preference. It varies
>> from time to time and from society to society for a variety of
>> reasons, and does not exist over and above these preferences. The
>> touchstone by which we evaluate the moral systems of others turns out
>> to be our own hearthstone. We can reason about and predict consequences of
>> actions, but it's
>> quite possible that what we would call a moral act will produce
>> situations we abhor, and that an immoral act will produce consequences
>> we think are fine.
>>
>> Ask the philosophers, "what is the ontological status of the good"?
>> And watch 'em shuffle and dance.
>>
>
> The article at the plato site that I gave a link to is rather lengthy and
> considers many aspects of morality. Later in the article the author attempts
> to produce a synthesis of his philosophical findings regarding normative
> morality in the form of a new definition:
>
> "Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons,
> governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm
> as its goal."
>
> If this definition is accepted, then one can examine the existence and health
> of the public system in a particular context. If a given society has problems
> with apathy, fear, and stifled communications we might expect that the
> attendant public system of morality might be in poor shape, or even dead.
>
> Phil uses the phrase "abandonment of individual conscience" which strikes a
> chord with me. How often have we read about alienation, lack of concern for
> our neighbors and so on in our society? Interesting as it is to me, this does
> threaten to wander pretty far afield from our news group topics. But it does
> have a connection with the discussion of Bobby Fischer's post 9/11 comments.
>
> Since when is it the role of our USCF to make moral judgments about the
> political speech of people who are not even members of the organization? And
> what gives them the right to pronounce the sentence of symbolically exiling
> this man who is not a member? What is next, are they going to wear white
> sheets and burn crosses the next time they get excited? This is not the kind
> of chess organization I want to join.


You come across to me as somewhere between
confused and naive.
1. "Fischer" and "chess" are linked in the public
eye. The fact that Fischer had not actually been
a USCF member for decades, that according
to his own words he had long given up chess,
are irrelevant details. It's an issue of public perception.
2. For decades, the US chess establishment (incl.
those who post here) have given a wink and a nod to
Fischer's hate speech. Nobody wanted to offend
"poor Bobby". Every excuse - from mental illness
to evil Russians to the American government (having
the audacity to enforce the law!) - have been
brought out to condone reprehensible conduct.
3. When Fischer applauded the terrorist attacks, he
got a belated rise out of the otherwise cowardly chess
officialdom. (Not that it slowed down apologists
like Sloan - whose defense based on outright lies
is appalling even for him)

Where you get your idea that chess organizations
exist to provide a haven for genocide advocates
is a mystery.






>
> Bobby is dead. He lived a very disturbed life. He was brilliant at chess.
> That is enough. Let him rest in peace.

Sorry. It's not enough to say he was "disturbed". He was also
wrong.


> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."

Irony.

>
> Rev. J.D. Walker



         
Date: 24 Jul 2008 02:57:53
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
David Kane wrote:
>
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Mike Murray wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:15:13 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I believe my meaning is better served by instead referring to item
>>>> #2 of the definition of /morality/ I find at
>>>
>>>> [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ ].
>>>
>>>> "2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
>>>> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."
>>>
>>>> The "given specified conditions" phrase is tricky. Hypothetically,
>>>> if I place an innocent but intelligent group of persons in a room to
>>>> observe objective documentaries that focused on the attacks and
>>>> immediate aftermath of both the nuking of Nagasaki and the 9/11
>>>> attacks on the US, how will they react in terms of moral outrage to
>>>> each?
>>>
>>> The tacit assumption is that "innocent but intelligent group of
>>> persons" is from our day and age and with a similar educational,
>>> social and familial background to our own. Biblical Hebrews, First
>>> Century Romans, 13th century Mongols, 20th Century Nazis, 19th century
>>> American generals ("nits make lice", "let God sort 'em out") might
>>> think it quite moral to celebrate the slaughter of enemies. A fair
>>> number of "hard-nosed" types from our own society might reference
>>> "collateral damage".
>>>
>>> There's virtually no act, no matter how outrageous it may appear to us
>>> that hasn't been considered moral by intelligent men, innocent by
>>> their own standards, somewhere, sometime. Think of Socrates, for
>>> example, reaming out a hapless nitwit who reported his father for
>>> beating a slave to death. Think of Moses, demanding the slaughter of
>>> women and young boys.
>>>
>>> IMO, "morality" is merely strongly held human preference. It varies
>>> from time to time and from society to society for a variety of
>>> reasons, and does not exist over and above these preferences. The
>>> touchstone by which we evaluate the moral systems of others turns out
>>> to be our own hearthstone. We can reason about and predict
>>> consequences of actions, but it's
>>> quite possible that what we would call a moral act will produce
>>> situations we abhor, and that an immoral act will produce consequences
>>> we think are fine.
>>>
>>> Ask the philosophers, "what is the ontological status of the good"?
>>> And watch 'em shuffle and dance.
>>>
>>
>> The article at the plato site that I gave a link to is rather lengthy
>> and considers many aspects of morality. Later in the article the
>> author attempts to produce a synthesis of his philosophical findings
>> regarding normative morality in the form of a new definition:
>>
>> "Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational
>> persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening
>> of evil or harm as its goal."
>>
>> If this definition is accepted, then one can examine the existence and
>> health of the public system in a particular context. If a given
>> society has problems with apathy, fear, and stifled communications we
>> might expect that the attendant public system of morality might be in
>> poor shape, or even dead.
>>
>> Phil uses the phrase "abandonment of individual conscience" which
>> strikes a chord with me. How often have we read about alienation,
>> lack of concern for our neighbors and so on in our society?
>> Interesting as it is to me, this does threaten to wander pretty far
>> afield from our news group topics. But it does have a connection with
>> the discussion of Bobby Fischer's post 9/11 comments.
>>
>> Since when is it the role of our USCF to make moral judgments about
>> the political speech of people who are not even members of the
>> organization? And what gives them the right to pronounce the sentence
>> of symbolically exiling this man who is not a member? What is next,
>> are they going to wear white sheets and burn crosses the next time
>> they get excited? This is not the kind of chess organization I want
>> to join.
>
>
> You come across to me as somewhere between
> confused and naive.

I hope to learn, clarify and refine ideas through discussion.

> 1. "Fischer" and "chess" are linked in the public
> eye. The fact that Fischer had not actually been
> a USCF member for decades, that according
> to his own words he had long given up chess,
> are irrelevant details. It's an issue of public perception.

It was sufficient for the USCF to issue a statement distancing itself
from his remarks.

> 2. For decades, the US chess establishment (incl.
> those who post here) have given a wink and a nod to
> Fischer's hate speech. Nobody wanted to offend
> "poor Bobby". Every excuse - from mental illness
> to evil Russians to the American government (having
> the audacity to enforce the law!) - have been
> brought out to condone reprehensible conduct.

I have not condoned the 9/11 comments made by Fischer. That was the hot
topic of this thread in my mind.

> 3. When Fischer applauded the terrorist attacks, he
> got a belated rise out of the otherwise cowardly chess
> officialdom. (Not that it slowed down apologists
> like Sloan - whose defense based on outright lies
> is appalling even for him)

Who is a coward for what act?

> Where you get your idea that chess organizations
> exist to provide a haven for genocide advocates
> is a mystery.

I never said this. Why did you?

>> Bobby is dead. He lived a very disturbed life. He was brilliant at
>> chess. That is enough. Let him rest in peace.
>
> Sorry. It's not enough to say he was "disturbed". He was also
> wrong.

You set yourself up as a moral authority and pronounce a judgment. What
else do you judge?

I raised the subject of morality because of statements like yours.
Selective application of moral judgment while turning a blind eye to
other far more serious moral issues is not a confidence building practice.

This also applies to the USCF and its punishment of Fischer. Now that
they have decided to become judge's of moral behavior, what are they
going to do about all the other cases of immoral behavior of people in
the chess world? Will they set up a system of tribunals to judge these
cases? In my opinion, it is a very unwise decision for them to open
this door and go down this path.

People that want to paint things as completely black and white often
puzzle me. Consider the following:

"One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic
achievement. If our country were defeated I hope we should find a
champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our
place among the nations.” -- Winston Churchill, Sept 1937

Does such a statement change your opinion of Hitler, or of Churchill?

How about the heroics of the carpet bombing of Tokyo in WWII?

“We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that
night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagaski
combined.” -- General Curtis LeMay

Was this a war crime? Was it at least of sufficient importance to merit
investigation at the Nuremberg trials?

I found these examples in a commentary about a book by Patrick Buchanan
titled: ‘Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.’

[ http://backwaterreport.com/?p=943 ]

We live in a country that turns a blind eye on many things. The victors
write the histories. Who are the victors? Who controls our media and
our government representatives? Follow the money laddie...
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


          
Date: 24 Jul 2008 09:33:50
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> David Kane wrote:
>>
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> Mike Murray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:15:13 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I believe my meaning is better served by instead referring to item #2 of
>>>>> the definition of /morality/ I find at
>>>>
>>>>> [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ ].
>>>>
>>>>> "2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
>>>>> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."
>>>>
>>>>> The "given specified conditions" phrase is tricky. Hypothetically, if I
>>>>> place an innocent but intelligent group of persons in a room to observe
>>>>> objective documentaries that focused on the attacks and immediate
>>>>> aftermath of both the nuking of Nagasaki and the 9/11 attacks on the US,
>>>>> how will they react in terms of moral outrage to each?
>>>>
>>>> The tacit assumption is that "innocent but intelligent group of
>>>> persons" is from our day and age and with a similar educational,
>>>> social and familial background to our own. Biblical Hebrews, First
>>>> Century Romans, 13th century Mongols, 20th Century Nazis, 19th century
>>>> American generals ("nits make lice", "let God sort 'em out") might
>>>> think it quite moral to celebrate the slaughter of enemies. A fair
>>>> number of "hard-nosed" types from our own society might reference
>>>> "collateral damage".
>>>>
>>>> There's virtually no act, no matter how outrageous it may appear to us
>>>> that hasn't been considered moral by intelligent men, innocent by
>>>> their own standards, somewhere, sometime. Think of Socrates, for
>>>> example, reaming out a hapless nitwit who reported his father for
>>>> beating a slave to death. Think of Moses, demanding the slaughter of
>>>> women and young boys.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, "morality" is merely strongly held human preference. It varies
>>>> from time to time and from society to society for a variety of
>>>> reasons, and does not exist over and above these preferences. The
>>>> touchstone by which we evaluate the moral systems of others turns out
>>>> to be our own hearthstone. We can reason about and predict consequences
>>>> of actions, but it's
>>>> quite possible that what we would call a moral act will produce
>>>> situations we abhor, and that an immoral act will produce consequences
>>>> we think are fine.
>>>>
>>>> Ask the philosophers, "what is the ontological status of the good"?
>>>> And watch 'em shuffle and dance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The article at the plato site that I gave a link to is rather lengthy and
>>> considers many aspects of morality. Later in the article the author
>>> attempts to produce a synthesis of his philosophical findings regarding
>>> normative morality in the form of a new definition:
>>>
>>> "Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons,
>>> governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or
>>> harm as its goal."
>>>
>>> If this definition is accepted, then one can examine the existence and
>>> health of the public system in a particular context. If a given society has
>>> problems with apathy, fear, and stifled communications we might expect that
>>> the attendant public system of morality might be in poor shape, or even
>>> dead.
>>>
>>> Phil uses the phrase "abandonment of individual conscience" which strikes a
>>> chord with me. How often have we read about alienation, lack of concern for
>>> our neighbors and so on in our society? Interesting as it is to me, this
>>> does threaten to wander pretty far afield from our news group topics. But
>>> it does have a connection with the discussion of Bobby Fischer's post 9/11
>>> comments.
>>>
>>> Since when is it the role of our USCF to make moral judgments about the
>>> political speech of people who are not even members of the organization? And
>>> what gives them the right to pronounce the sentence of symbolically exiling
>>> this man who is not a member? What is next, are they going to wear white
>>> sheets and burn crosses the next time they get excited? This is not the
>>> kind of chess organization I want to join.
>>
>>
>> You come across to me as somewhere between
>> confused and naive.
>
> I hope to learn, clarify and refine ideas through discussion.
>
>> 1. "Fischer" and "chess" are linked in the public
>> eye. The fact that Fischer had not actually been
>> a USCF member for decades, that according
>> to his own words he had long given up chess,
>> are irrelevant details. It's an issue of public perception.
>
> It was sufficient for the USCF to issue a statement distancing itself from his
> remarks.
>
>> 2. For decades, the US chess establishment (incl.
>> those who post here) have given a wink and a nod to
>> Fischer's hate speech. Nobody wanted to offend
>> "poor Bobby". Every excuse - from mental illness
>> to evil Russians to the American government (having
>> the audacity to enforce the law!) - have been
>> brought out to condone reprehensible conduct.
>
> I have not condoned the 9/11 comments made by Fischer. That was the hot topic
> of this thread in my mind.
>
>> 3. When Fischer applauded the terrorist attacks, he
>> got a belated rise out of the otherwise cowardly chess
>> officialdom. (Not that it slowed down apologists
>> like Sloan - whose defense based on outright lies
>> is appalling even for him)
>
> Who is a coward for what act?
>
>> Where you get your idea that chess organizations
>> exist to provide a haven for genocide advocates
>> is a mystery.
>
> I never said this. Why did you?
>
>>> Bobby is dead. He lived a very disturbed life. He was brilliant at chess.
>>> That is enough. Let him rest in peace.
>>
>> Sorry. It's not enough to say he was "disturbed". He was also
>> wrong.
>
> You set yourself up as a moral authority and pronounce a judgment. What else
> do you judge?
>
> I raised the subject of morality because of statements like yours. Selective
> application of moral judgment while turning a blind eye to other far more
> serious moral issues is not a confidence building practice.

To me, you are simply confused. To equate speaking out against
those applauding terrorism with the Ku Klax Klan is just loopy.

>
> This also applies to the USCF and its punishment of Fischer. Now that they
> have decided to become judge's of moral behavior, what are they going to do
> about all the other cases of immoral behavior of people in the chess world?
> Will they set up a system of tribunals to judge these cases? In my opinion,
> it is a very unwise decision for them to open this door and go down this path.
>
> People that want to paint things as completely black and white often puzzle
> me. Consider the following:
>
> "One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If
> our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to
> restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.” --
> Winston Churchill, Sept 1937
>
> Does such a statement change your opinion of Hitler, or of Churchill?
>
> How about the heroics of the carpet bombing of Tokyo in WWII?
>
> “We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that night of
> March 9-10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.” --
> General Curtis LeMay
>
> Was this a war crime? Was it at least of sufficient importance to merit
> investigation at the Nuremberg trials?
>
> I found these examples in a commentary about a book by Patrick Buchanan
> titled: ‘Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.’
>
> [ http://backwaterreport.com/?p=943 ]
>
> We live in a country that turns a blind eye on many things. The victors write
> the histories. Who are the victors? Who controls our media and our
> government representatives? Follow the money laddie...

Others have tried to deal with some of your general shortcomings
in historical understanding, but, frankly, the Fischer issue is rather
straightforward, and your expansion to other topics is
tangential.

History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.

> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker



           
Date: 24 Jul 2008 13:58:03
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
David Kane wrote:
>
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> David Kane wrote:
>>>
>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> Mike Murray wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:15:13 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe my meaning is better served by instead referring to item
>>>>>> #2 of the definition of /morality/ I find at
>>>>>
>>>>>> [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ ].
>>>>>
>>>>>> "2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given
>>>>>> specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."
>>>>>
>>>>>> The "given specified conditions" phrase is tricky.
>>>>>> Hypothetically, if I place an innocent but intelligent group of
>>>>>> persons in a room to observe objective documentaries that focused
>>>>>> on the attacks and immediate aftermath of both the nuking of
>>>>>> Nagasaki and the 9/11 attacks on the US, how will they react in
>>>>>> terms of moral outrage to each?
>>>>>
>>>>> The tacit assumption is that "innocent but intelligent group of
>>>>> persons" is from our day and age and with a similar educational,
>>>>> social and familial background to our own. Biblical Hebrews, First
>>>>> Century Romans, 13th century Mongols, 20th Century Nazis, 19th century
>>>>> American generals ("nits make lice", "let God sort 'em out") might
>>>>> think it quite moral to celebrate the slaughter of enemies. A fair
>>>>> number of "hard-nosed" types from our own society might reference
>>>>> "collateral damage".
>>>>>
>>>>> There's virtually no act, no matter how outrageous it may appear to us
>>>>> that hasn't been considered moral by intelligent men, innocent by
>>>>> their own standards, somewhere, sometime. Think of Socrates, for
>>>>> example, reaming out a hapless nitwit who reported his father for
>>>>> beating a slave to death. Think of Moses, demanding the slaughter of
>>>>> women and young boys.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, "morality" is merely strongly held human preference. It varies
>>>>> from time to time and from society to society for a variety of
>>>>> reasons, and does not exist over and above these preferences. The
>>>>> touchstone by which we evaluate the moral systems of others turns out
>>>>> to be our own hearthstone. We can reason about and predict
>>>>> consequences of actions, but it's
>>>>> quite possible that what we would call a moral act will produce
>>>>> situations we abhor, and that an immoral act will produce consequences
>>>>> we think are fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask the philosophers, "what is the ontological status of the good"?
>>>>> And watch 'em shuffle and dance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The article at the plato site that I gave a link to is rather
>>>> lengthy and considers many aspects of morality. Later in the
>>>> article the author attempts to produce a synthesis of his
>>>> philosophical findings regarding normative morality in the form of a
>>>> new definition:
>>>>
>>>> "Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational
>>>> persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the
>>>> lessening of evil or harm as its goal."
>>>>
>>>> If this definition is accepted, then one can examine the existence
>>>> and health of the public system in a particular context. If a given
>>>> society has problems with apathy, fear, and stifled communications
>>>> we might expect that the attendant public system of morality might
>>>> be in poor shape, or even dead.
>>>>
>>>> Phil uses the phrase "abandonment of individual conscience" which
>>>> strikes a chord with me. How often have we read about alienation,
>>>> lack of concern for our neighbors and so on in our society?
>>>> Interesting as it is to me, this does threaten to wander pretty far
>>>> afield from our news group topics. But it does have a connection
>>>> with the discussion of Bobby Fischer's post 9/11 comments.
>>>>
>>>> Since when is it the role of our USCF to make moral judgments about
>>>> the political speech of people who are not even members of the
>>>> organization? And what gives them the right to pronounce the
>>>> sentence of symbolically exiling this man who is not a member? What
>>>> is next, are they going to wear white sheets and burn crosses the
>>>> next time they get excited? This is not the kind of chess
>>>> organization I want to join.
>>>
>>>
>>> You come across to me as somewhere between
>>> confused and naive.
>>
>> I hope to learn, clarify and refine ideas through discussion.
>>
>>> 1. "Fischer" and "chess" are linked in the public
>>> eye. The fact that Fischer had not actually been
>>> a USCF member for decades, that according
>>> to his own words he had long given up chess,
>>> are irrelevant details. It's an issue of public perception.
>>
>> It was sufficient for the USCF to issue a statement distancing itself
>> from his remarks.
>>
>>> 2. For decades, the US chess establishment (incl.
>>> those who post here) have given a wink and a nod to
>>> Fischer's hate speech. Nobody wanted to offend
>>> "poor Bobby". Every excuse - from mental illness
>>> to evil Russians to the American government (having
>>> the audacity to enforce the law!) - have been
>>> brought out to condone reprehensible conduct.
>>
>> I have not condoned the 9/11 comments made by Fischer. That was the
>> hot topic of this thread in my mind.
>>
>>> 3. When Fischer applauded the terrorist attacks, he
>>> got a belated rise out of the otherwise cowardly chess
>>> officialdom. (Not that it slowed down apologists
>>> like Sloan - whose defense based on outright lies
>>> is appalling even for him)
>>
>> Who is a coward for what act?
>>
>>> Where you get your idea that chess organizations
>>> exist to provide a haven for genocide advocates
>>> is a mystery.
>>
>> I never said this. Why did you?
>>
>>>> Bobby is dead. He lived a very disturbed life. He was brilliant at
>>>> chess. That is enough. Let him rest in peace.
>>>
>>> Sorry. It's not enough to say he was "disturbed". He was also
>>> wrong.
>>
>> You set yourself up as a moral authority and pronounce a judgment.
>> What else do you judge?
>>
>> I raised the subject of morality because of statements like yours.
>> Selective application of moral judgment while turning a blind eye to
>> other far more serious moral issues is not a confidence building
>> practice.
>
> To me, you are simply confused. To equate speaking out against
> those applauding terrorism with the Ku Klax Klan is just loopy.

The "white sheets and crosses" comment was regrettable. In the heat of
the moment I chose a confusing comment that distorted my point and was
not appropriate. In open discussion on an uncensored newsgroup mistakes
will happen. I withdraw that comment and apologize for its impact.

>> This also applies to the USCF and its punishment of Fischer. Now that
>> they have decided to become judge's of moral behavior, what are they
>> going to do about all the other cases of immoral behavior of people in
>> the chess world? Will they set up a system of tribunals to judge these
>> cases? In my opinion, it is a very unwise decision for them to open
>> this door and go down this path.
>>
>> People that want to paint things as completely black and white often
>> puzzle me. Consider the following:
>>
>> "One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic
>> achievement. If our country were defeated I hope we should find a
>> champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our
>> place among the nations.” -- Winston Churchill, Sept 1937
>>
>> Does such a statement change your opinion of Hitler, or of Churchill?
>>
>> How about the heroics of the carpet bombing of Tokyo in WWII?
>>
>> “We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that
>> night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagaski
>> combined.” -- General Curtis LeMay
>>
>> Was this a war crime? Was it at least of sufficient importance to
>> merit investigation at the Nuremberg trials?
>>
>> I found these examples in a commentary about a book by Patrick
>> Buchanan titled: ‘Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.’
>>
>> [ http://backwaterreport.com/?p=943 ]
>>
>> We live in a country that turns a blind eye on many things. The
>> victors write the histories. Who are the victors? Who controls our
>> media and our government representatives? Follow the money laddie...
>
> Others have tried to deal with some of your general shortcomings
> in historical understanding, but, frankly, the Fischer issue is rather
> straightforward, and your expansion to other topics is
> tangential.

The concept of the unfairness of selective moral outrage can be
difficult to perceive or appreciate -- especially for those caught up in it.

> History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
> chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
> of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
> obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
> Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
> felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.

My impression was that for a time the media profited off of Fischer's
bizarreness in the same sense that they did with John McEnroe, Jimmy
Connors, or Phil Hellmuth. I regard the promotion of a "bad boy" image
by the media in American sports and gaming as a societal character flaw.
When he went off the deep end with his 9/11 comments, he suddenly
became poisonous.

I do not see how this connects to Mr. Truong. Explain if you will.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


            
Date: 24 Jul 2008 19:40:00
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>
> The concept of the unfairness of selective moral outrage can be difficult to
> perceive or appreciate -- especially for those caught up in it.

It's not selective moral outrage, it is just appropriate moral
outrage. You confuse the issue by looking for difficult
gray areas - this is not such a case.


>
>> History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
>> chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
>> of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
>> obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
>> Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
>> felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.
>
> My impression was that for a time the media profited off of Fischer's
> bizarreness in the same sense that they did with John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors,
> or Phil Hellmuth. I regard the promotion of a "bad boy" image by the media in
> American sports and gaming as a societal character flaw. When he went off the
> deep end with his 9/11 comments, he suddenly became poisonous.

This isn't the way it happened. For a long time, Fischer was well
beyond "bizarre" into the realm of offensive hate speech.
The American chess community to a large extent pretended
that it didn't exist (not wanting to burn any bridges lest he
"heroically" return to game one day). His 9/11 comments were so
offensive that they did trigger a response.


>
> I do not see how this connects to Mr. Truong. Explain if you will.

Truong's obscenity-laden posts as the Fake Sam Sloan (and others) are
analogous to Fischer's hate speech. It's conduct.worthy of
condemnation - largely absent.

Chess declares itself as a community without standards. That
does it no good. Or even worse, if I understand you correctly,
you consider the lack of standards a virtue to be touted.




> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker



             
Date: 24 Jul 2008 22:35:18
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
David Kane wrote:
>
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>
>> The concept of the unfairness of selective moral outrage can be
>> difficult to perceive or appreciate -- especially for those caught up
>> in it.
>
> It's not selective moral outrage, it is just appropriate moral
> outrage. You confuse the issue by looking for difficult
> gray areas - this is not such a case.

It appears that you and I are not going to reach a common understanding
on this point. I will let it be, and you can go on with your crusade.

>>> History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
>>> chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
>>> of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
>>> obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
>>> Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
>>> felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.
>>
>> My impression was that for a time the media profited off of Fischer's
>> bizarreness in the same sense that they did with John McEnroe, Jimmy
>> Connors, or Phil Hellmuth. I regard the promotion of a "bad boy"
>> image by the media in American sports and gaming as a societal
>> character flaw. When he went off the deep end with his 9/11 comments,
>> he suddenly became poisonous.
>
> This isn't the way it happened. For a long time, Fischer was well
> beyond "bizarre" into the realm of offensive hate speech.
> The American chess community to a large extent pretended
> that it didn't exist (not wanting to burn any bridges lest he
> "heroically" return to game one day). His 9/11 comments were so
> offensive that they did trigger a response.

I see that you are very upset both with Fischer and with the American
chess community.

>>
>> I do not see how this connects to Mr. Truong. Explain if you will.
>
> Truong's obscenity-laden posts as the Fake Sam Sloan (and others) are
> analogous to Fischer's hate speech. It's conduct.worthy of
> condemnation - largely absent.

The allegations against Mr. Truong are currently in litigation. The
system of justice is working in its slow and inexorable fashion. I want
to wait until we have a result before I venture to make any sort of
statement like you have about the allegations.

If the two cases are dismissed, I will be deeply disappointed. I see
them as an opportunity to bring to light information regarding why there
is so much strife in US chess governance.

The USCF imposter, whoever he and/or she is finally judged to be, did
real damage to the US chess community. If I were on a jury that had
determined guilt, I would be hoping for the maximum civil or criminal
penalties, as the case may be, allowed by law.

I do not see an analogy where you do between Fischer's behavior and that
of the USCF impostor. Even if there were some kind of analogy, that is
not a causal relationship. However, the actions of the USCF impostor
appear to have upset you to a like degree.

> Chess declares itself as a community without standards. That
> does it no good. Or even worse, if I understand you correctly,
> you consider the lack of standards a virtue to be touted.

I do not believe that it is the role of gaming organizations to engage
in mock judicial proceedings against people who are not members of the
organization.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


              
Date: 25 Jul 2008 08:27:06
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> David Kane wrote:
>>
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>>
>>> The concept of the unfairness of selective moral outrage can be difficult to
>>> perceive or appreciate -- especially for those caught up in it.
>>
>> It's not selective moral outrage, it is just appropriate moral
>> outrage. You confuse the issue by looking for difficult
>> gray areas - this is not such a case.
>
> It appears that you and I are not going to reach a common understanding on
> this point. I will let it be, and you can go on with your crusade.

And I guess you may continue offering ridiculous excuses for
horrible behavior.


>
>>>> History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
>>>> chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
>>>> of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
>>>> obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
>>>> Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
>>>> felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.
>>>
>>> My impression was that for a time the media profited off of Fischer's
>>> bizarreness in the same sense that they did with John McEnroe, Jimmy
>>> Connors, or Phil Hellmuth. I regard the promotion of a "bad boy" image by
>>> the media in American sports and gaming as a societal character flaw. When
>>> he went off the deep end with his 9/11 comments, he suddenly became
>>> poisonous.
>>
>> This isn't the way it happened. For a long time, Fischer was well
>> beyond "bizarre" into the realm of offensive hate speech.
>> The American chess community to a large extent pretended
>> that it didn't exist (not wanting to burn any bridges lest he
>> "heroically" return to game one day). His 9/11 comments were so
>> offensive that they did trigger a response.
>
> I see that you are very upset both with Fischer and with the American chess
> community.

Hardly upset. But I do think that the failure to have standards
of decent human beings (Parr's original point of celebration)
is certainly nothing to brag about.


>
>>>
>>> I do not see how this connects to Mr. Truong. Explain if you will.
>>
>> Truong's obscenity-laden posts as the Fake Sam Sloan (and others) are
>> analogous to Fischer's hate speech. It's conduct.worthy of
>> condemnation - largely absent.
>
> The allegations against Mr. Truong are currently in litigation. The system of
> justice is working in its slow and inexorable fashion. I want to wait until
> we have a result before I venture to make any sort of statement like you have
> about the allegations.


Sigh. It is amazing that people have such little grasp of the
purpose of our legal system.

The purpose of the litigation is to determine whether
Sloan and Gordon should be compensated for their "damages".
Period. It has *no* relevance to the issue of the American
chess community and its standards.

If, as seems likely, Sloan and Gordon prove not capable
of competently negotiating the court system, or if the
damages are deemed negligible, it does not make
Mr. Truong's behavior less abominable, or worthy of
condemnation. It just saves him some money.



>
> If the two cases are dismissed, I will be deeply disappointed. I see them as
> an opportunity to bring to light information regarding why there is so much
> strife in US chess governance.
>
> The USCF imposter, whoever he and/or she is finally judged to be, did real
> damage to the US chess community. If I were on a jury that had determined
> guilt, I would be hoping for the maximum civil or criminal penalties, as the
> case may be, allowed by law.
>
> I do not see an analogy where you do between Fischer's behavior and that of
> the USCF impostor. Even if there were some kind of analogy, that is not a
> causal relationship. However, the actions of the USCF impostor appear to have
> upset you to a like degree.

Again, not so much as the American chess community's
lacking standards that decent human being should have.
By not holding chessplayers to standards that virtually
everybody else must adhere to, is harmful.


>
>> Chess declares itself as a community without standards. That
>> does it no good. Or even worse, if I understand you correctly,
>> you consider the lack of standards a virtue to be touted.
>
> I do not believe that it is the role of gaming organizations to engage in mock
> judicial proceedings against people who are not members of the organization.

Anything goes. Right?

> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."

Fabulous irony.

>
> Rev. J.D. Walker



               
Date: 25 Jul 2008 09:23:25
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
David Kane wrote:
>
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> David Kane wrote:
>>>
>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The concept of the unfairness of selective moral outrage can be
>>>> difficult to perceive or appreciate -- especially for those caught
>>>> up in it.
>>>
>>> It's not selective moral outrage, it is just appropriate moral
>>> outrage. You confuse the issue by looking for difficult
>>> gray areas - this is not such a case.
>>
>> It appears that you and I are not going to reach a common
>> understanding on this point. I will let it be, and you can go on with
>> your crusade.
>
> And I guess you may continue offering ridiculous excuses for
> horrible behavior.

From this statement I take it that you are upset and feeling nasty.

>>>>> History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
>>>>> chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
>>>>> of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
>>>>> obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
>>>>> Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
>>>>> felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.
>>>>
>>>> My impression was that for a time the media profited off of
>>>> Fischer's bizarreness in the same sense that they did with John
>>>> McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, or Phil Hellmuth. I regard the promotion of
>>>> a "bad boy" image by the media in American sports and gaming as a
>>>> societal character flaw. When he went off the deep end with his 9/11
>>>> comments, he suddenly became poisonous.
>>>
>>> This isn't the way it happened. For a long time, Fischer was well
>>> beyond "bizarre" into the realm of offensive hate speech.
>>> The American chess community to a large extent pretended
>>> that it didn't exist (not wanting to burn any bridges lest he
>>> "heroically" return to game one day). His 9/11 comments were so
>>> offensive that they did trigger a response.
>>
>> I see that you are very upset both with Fischer and with the American
>> chess community.
>
> Hardly upset. But I do think that the failure to have standards
> of decent human beings (Parr's original point of celebration)
> is certainly nothing to brag about.

What are the standards of decent human beings that you refer to? Do you
understand that such a topic is the subject of widespread differences
around the world? Are your standards faith-based or humanist in nature?
How do you propose to advance your concept of these standards within
the American chess community?

>>>> I do not see how this connects to Mr. Truong. Explain if you will.
>>>
>>> Truong's obscenity-laden posts as the Fake Sam Sloan (and others) are
>>> analogous to Fischer's hate speech. It's conduct.worthy of
>>> condemnation - largely absent.
>>
>> The allegations against Mr. Truong are currently in litigation. The
>> system of justice is working in its slow and inexorable fashion. I
>> want to wait until we have a result before I venture to make any sort
>> of statement like you have about the allegations.
>
>
> Sigh. It is amazing that people have such little grasp of the
> purpose of our legal system.
>
> The purpose of the litigation is to determine whether
> Sloan and Gordon should be compensated for their "damages".
> Period. It has *no* relevance to the issue of the American
> chess community and its standards.

If the cases are brought to trial there will be opportunities to uncover
facts relevant to chess governance that may otherwise never come to
light. One of the possible outcomes of either of these cases is that
one of the plaintiffs may win on one aspect of their case and be awarded
a dollar in damages. I will be most interested to find out what happens.

> If, as seems likely, Sloan and Gordon prove not capable
> of competently negotiating the court system, or if the
> damages are deemed negligible, it does not make
> Mr. Truong's behavior less abominable, or worthy of
> condemnation. It just saves him some money.

You seem to be in the mood to condemn Mr. Truong and do not believe that
either of the lawsuits serve any of your purposes. What will you do,
file your own lawsuit?

>> If the two cases are dismissed, I will be deeply disappointed. I see
>> them as an opportunity to bring to light information regarding why
>> there is so much strife in US chess governance.
>>
>> The USCF imposter, whoever he and/or she is finally judged to be, did
>> real damage to the US chess community. If I were on a jury that had
>> determined guilt, I would be hoping for the maximum civil or criminal
>> penalties, as the case may be, allowed by law.
>>
>> I do not see an analogy where you do between Fischer's behavior and
>> that of the USCF impostor. Even if there were some kind of analogy,
>> that is not a causal relationship. However, the actions of the USCF
>> impostor appear to have upset you to a like degree.
>
> Again, not so much as the American chess community's
> lacking standards that decent human being should have.
> By not holding chessplayers to standards that virtually
> everybody else must adhere to, is harmful.

Again, you seem to be deeply upset about the standards issue and how it
relates to the chess community. What are these standards? How do you
propose to advance your interpretation of desirable human behavior
within this community?

>>> Chess declares itself as a community without standards. That
>>> does it no good. Or even worse, if I understand you correctly,
>>> you consider the lack of standards a virtue to be touted.
>>
>> I do not believe that it is the role of gaming organizations to engage
>> in mock judicial proceedings against people who are not members of the
>> organization.
>
> Anything goes. Right?

Is this part of your standards?
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


                
Date: 25 Jul 2008 10:44:24
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> David Kane wrote:
>>
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> David Kane wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The concept of the unfairness of selective moral outrage can be difficult
>>>>> to perceive or appreciate -- especially for those caught up in it.
>>>>
>>>> It's not selective moral outrage, it is just appropriate moral
>>>> outrage. You confuse the issue by looking for difficult
>>>> gray areas - this is not such a case.
>>>
>>> It appears that you and I are not going to reach a common understanding on
>>> this point. I will let it be, and you can go on with your crusade.
>>
>> And I guess you may continue offering ridiculous excuses for
>> horrible behavior.
>
> From this statement I take it that you are upset and feeling nasty.

I see it as an "in kind" response to your "crusade" comment.


>
>>>>>> History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
>>>>>> chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
>>>>>> of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
>>>>>> obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
>>>>>> Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
>>>>>> felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.
>>>>>
>>>>> My impression was that for a time the media profited off of Fischer's
>>>>> bizarreness in the same sense that they did with John McEnroe, Jimmy
>>>>> Connors, or Phil Hellmuth. I regard the promotion of a "bad boy" image by
>>>>> the media in American sports and gaming as a societal character flaw. When
>>>>> he went off the deep end with his 9/11 comments, he suddenly became
>>>>> poisonous.
>>>>
>>>> This isn't the way it happened. For a long time, Fischer was well
>>>> beyond "bizarre" into the realm of offensive hate speech.
>>>> The American chess community to a large extent pretended
>>>> that it didn't exist (not wanting to burn any bridges lest he
>>>> "heroically" return to game one day). His 9/11 comments were so
>>>> offensive that they did trigger a response.
>>>
>>> I see that you are very upset both with Fischer and with the American chess
>>> community.
>>
>> Hardly upset. But I do think that the failure to have standards
>> of decent human beings (Parr's original point of celebration)
>> is certainly nothing to brag about.
>
> What are the standards of decent human beings that you refer to? Do you
> understand that such a topic is the subject of widespread differences around
> the world? Are your standards faith-based or humanist in nature? How do you
> propose to advance your concept of these standards within the American chess
> community?

Again, pretending that there are complications when there are none.

If you want to offer *your* defense of 9/11 and posting widescale
obscenity in others' names, feel free to do so. Otherwise, the details
of how we arrive at a judgement that, say, mass killing of innocents
is wrong, are irrelevant.


>
>>>>> I do not see how this connects to Mr. Truong. Explain if you will.
>>>>
>>>> Truong's obscenity-laden posts as the Fake Sam Sloan (and others) are
>>>> analogous to Fischer's hate speech. It's conduct.worthy of
>>>> condemnation - largely absent.
>>>
>>> The allegations against Mr. Truong are currently in litigation. The system
>>> of justice is working in its slow and inexorable fashion. I want to wait
>>> until we have a result before I venture to make any sort of statement like
>>> you have about the allegations.
>>
>>
>> Sigh. It is amazing that people have such little grasp of the
>> purpose of our legal system.
>>
>> The purpose of the litigation is to determine whether
>> Sloan and Gordon should be compensated for their "damages".
>> Period. It has *no* relevance to the issue of the American
>> chess community and its standards.
>
> If the cases are brought to trial there will be opportunities to uncover facts
> relevant to chess governance that may otherwise never come to light. One of
> the possible outcomes of either of these cases is that one of the plaintiffs
> may win on one aspect of their case and be awarded a dollar in damages. I
> will be most interested to find out what happens.

Hooray for you. It has nothing to do with chess being a community with some
minimal standards of behavior. That's my objective.


>
>> If, as seems likely, Sloan and Gordon prove not capable
>> of competently negotiating the court system, or if the
>> damages are deemed negligible, it does not make
>> Mr. Truong's behavior less abominable, or worthy of
>> condemnation. It just saves him some money.
>
> You seem to be in the mood to condemn Mr. Truong and do not believe that
> either of the lawsuits serve any of your purposes. What will you do, file
> your own lawsuit?

I admit I am not a fan of frivolous litigation. I don't believe obscene and
fraudulent Usenet postings of this type should be a matter of
concern to the government. It *should* be a matter of concern to
chess players however, because it demonstrates the obvious
unfitness of Mr. Truong to act in an executive capacity.

In this case, the litigants are essentially making a mockery
of the legal system, filing mass quanitities of rambling drivel.
A properly filed suit would be one thing (I might still be
inclined to feel it wasn't an issue for the courts but could
respect that others feel differently) This is little more than
an insult to the justice system.



>
>>> If the two cases are dismissed, I will be deeply disappointed. I see them
>>> as an opportunity to bring to light information regarding why there is so
>>> much strife in US chess governance.
>>>
>>> The USCF imposter, whoever he and/or she is finally judged to be, did real
>>> damage to the US chess community. If I were on a jury that had determined
>>> guilt, I would be hoping for the maximum civil or criminal penalties, as the
>>> case may be, allowed by law.
>>>
>>> I do not see an analogy where you do between Fischer's behavior and that of
>>> the USCF impostor. Even if there were some kind of analogy, that is not a
>>> causal relationship. However, the actions of the USCF impostor appear to
>>> have upset you to a like degree.
>>
>> Again, not so much as the American chess community's
>> lacking standards that decent human being should have.
>> By not holding chessplayers to standards that virtually
>> everybody else must adhere to, is harmful.
>
> Again, you seem to be deeply upset about the standards issue and how it
> relates to the chess community. What are these standards? How do you propose
> to advance your interpretation of desirable human behavior within this
> community?

Again, if you want to offer *your* defense of 9/11 or posting widescale
obscenity in others' names, feel free to do so. Otherwise, the details
of how we arrive at a judgement that, say, mass killing of innocents
is wrong, are irrelevant.

Pointing out that theoretically there could be gray areas is not a
valid reason to never do anything. You've used that faulty logic
a number of times now - perhaps you'd do better reflecting
on your error than worrying about whether or not I am "upset".




>
>>>> Chess declares itself as a community without standards. That
>>>> does it no good. Or even worse, if I understand you correctly,
>>>> you consider the lack of standards a virtue to be touted.
>>>
>>> I do not believe that it is the role of gaming organizations to engage in
>>> mock judicial proceedings against people who are not members of the
>>> organization.
>>
>> Anything goes. Right?
>
> Is this part of your standards?
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."

Could you please change your tag line to something more
in line with your beliefs?

>
> Rev. J.D. Walker



                 
Date: 25 Jul 2008 11:05:15
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
David Kane wrote:
>
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> David Kane wrote:
>>>
>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> David Kane wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The concept of the unfairness of selective moral outrage can be
>>>>>> difficult to perceive or appreciate -- especially for those caught
>>>>>> up in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not selective moral outrage, it is just appropriate moral
>>>>> outrage. You confuse the issue by looking for difficult
>>>>> gray areas - this is not such a case.
>>>>
>>>> It appears that you and I are not going to reach a common
>>>> understanding on this point. I will let it be, and you can go on
>>>> with your crusade.
>>>
>>> And I guess you may continue offering ridiculous excuses for
>>> horrible behavior.
>>
>> From this statement I take it that you are upset and feeling nasty.
>
> I see it as an "in kind" response to your "crusade" comment.
>>
>>>>>>> History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
>>>>>>> chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
>>>>>>> of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
>>>>>>> obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
>>>>>>> Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
>>>>>>> felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My impression was that for a time the media profited off of
>>>>>> Fischer's bizarreness in the same sense that they did with John
>>>>>> McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, or Phil Hellmuth. I regard the promotion
>>>>>> of a "bad boy" image by the media in American sports and gaming as
>>>>>> a societal character flaw. When he went off the deep end with his
>>>>>> 9/11 comments, he suddenly became poisonous.
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't the way it happened. For a long time, Fischer was well
>>>>> beyond "bizarre" into the realm of offensive hate speech.
>>>>> The American chess community to a large extent pretended
>>>>> that it didn't exist (not wanting to burn any bridges lest he
>>>>> "heroically" return to game one day). His 9/11 comments were so
>>>>> offensive that they did trigger a response.
>>>>
>>>> I see that you are very upset both with Fischer and with the
>>>> American chess community.
>>>
>>> Hardly upset. But I do think that the failure to have standards
>>> of decent human beings (Parr's original point of celebration)
>>> is certainly nothing to brag about.
>>
>> What are the standards of decent human beings that you refer to? Do
>> you understand that such a topic is the subject of widespread
>> differences around the world? Are your standards faith-based or
>> humanist in nature? How do you propose to advance your concept of
>> these standards within the American chess community?
>
> Again, pretending that there are complications when there are none.

I asked a simple question. You ask us to be concerned about standards,
yet you can not supply us with information about what they are...

> If you want to offer *your* defense of 9/11 and posting widescale
> obscenity in others' names, feel free to do so. Otherwise, the details
> of how we arrive at a judgement that, say, mass killing of innocents
> is wrong, are irrelevant.

I have not defended 9/11 or obscene postings. Quite the opposite. You
need to get your facts straight.

>>>>>> I do not see how this connects to Mr. Truong. Explain if you will.
>>>>>
>>>>> Truong's obscenity-laden posts as the Fake Sam Sloan (and others) are
>>>>> analogous to Fischer's hate speech. It's conduct.worthy of
>>>>> condemnation - largely absent.
>>>>
>>>> The allegations against Mr. Truong are currently in litigation. The
>>>> system of justice is working in its slow and inexorable fashion. I
>>>> want to wait until we have a result before I venture to make any
>>>> sort of statement like you have about the allegations.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sigh. It is amazing that people have such little grasp of the
>>> purpose of our legal system.
>>>
>>> The purpose of the litigation is to determine whether
>>> Sloan and Gordon should be compensated for their "damages".
>>> Period. It has *no* relevance to the issue of the American
>>> chess community and its standards.
>>
>> If the cases are brought to trial there will be opportunities to
>> uncover facts relevant to chess governance that may otherwise never
>> come to light. One of the possible outcomes of either of these cases
>> is that one of the plaintiffs may win on one aspect of their case and
>> be awarded a dollar in damages. I will be most interested to find out
>> what happens.
>
> Hooray for you. It has nothing to do with chess being a community with some
> minimal standards of behavior. That's my objective.

If it is your objective and you want to make a public issue out of it,
why are you so reluctant to tell us more about these standards of yours?
If we take you seriously, how will know how to apply these standards
to future cases?

>>> If, as seems likely, Sloan and Gordon prove not capable
>>> of competently negotiating the court system, or if the
>>> damages are deemed negligible, it does not make
>>> Mr. Truong's behavior less abominable, or worthy of
>>> condemnation. It just saves him some money.
>>
>> You seem to be in the mood to condemn Mr. Truong and do not believe
>> that either of the lawsuits serve any of your purposes. What will you
>> do, file your own lawsuit?
>
> I admit I am not a fan of frivolous litigation. I don't believe obscene and
> fraudulent Usenet postings of this type should be a matter of
> concern to the government. It *should* be a matter of concern to
> chess players however, because it demonstrates the obvious
> unfitness of Mr. Truong to act in an executive capacity.
>
> In this case, the litigants are essentially making a mockery
> of the legal system, filing mass quanitities of rambling drivel.
> A properly filed suit would be one thing (I might still be
> inclined to feel it wasn't an issue for the courts but could
> respect that others feel differently) This is little more than
> an insult to the justice system.

So are you saying that in your opinion the allegations against Mr.
Truong are not properly a matter for the justice system?

Please expand on your proposal for dealing with them.

>>>> If the two cases are dismissed, I will be deeply disappointed. I
>>>> see them as an opportunity to bring to light information regarding
>>>> why there is so much strife in US chess governance.
>>>>
>>>> The USCF imposter, whoever he and/or she is finally judged to be,
>>>> did real damage to the US chess community. If I were on a jury that
>>>> had determined guilt, I would be hoping for the maximum civil or
>>>> criminal penalties, as the case may be, allowed by law.
>>>>
>>>> I do not see an analogy where you do between Fischer's behavior and
>>>> that of the USCF impostor. Even if there were some kind of analogy,
>>>> that is not a causal relationship. However, the actions of the USCF
>>>> impostor appear to have upset you to a like degree.
>>>
>>> Again, not so much as the American chess community's
>>> lacking standards that decent human being should have.
>>> By not holding chessplayers to standards that virtually
>>> everybody else must adhere to, is harmful.
>>
>> Again, you seem to be deeply upset about the standards issue and how
>> it relates to the chess community. What are these standards? How do
>> you propose to advance your interpretation of desirable human behavior
>> within this community?
>
> Again, if you want to offer *your* defense of 9/11 or posting widescale
> obscenity in others' names, feel free to do so. Otherwise, the details
> of how we arrive at a judgement that, say, mass killing of innocents
> is wrong, are irrelevant.
>
> Pointing out that theoretically there could be gray areas is not a
> valid reason to never do anything. You've used that faulty logic
> a number of times now - perhaps you'd do better reflecting
> on your error than worrying about whether or not I am "upset".

Again, I have not defended 9/11 or obscene postings. Quite the
opposite. You need to get your facts straight.

Do you really have anything of substance to say about standards in chess
communities or is this just frustrated venting?

>>>>> Chess declares itself as a community without standards. That
>>>>> does it no good. Or even worse, if I understand you correctly,
>>>>> you consider the lack of standards a virtue to be touted.
>>>>
>>>> I do not believe that it is the role of gaming organizations to
>>>> engage in mock judicial proceedings against people who are not
>>>> members of the organization.
>>>
>>> Anything goes. Right?
>>
>> Is this part of your standards?
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


                  
Date: 25 Jul 2008 12:27:14
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> David Kane wrote:
>>
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> David Kane wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> David Kane wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The concept of the unfairness of selective moral outrage can be
>>>>>>> difficult to perceive or appreciate -- especially for those caught up in
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not selective moral outrage, it is just appropriate moral
>>>>>> outrage. You confuse the issue by looking for difficult
>>>>>> gray areas - this is not such a case.
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears that you and I are not going to reach a common understanding on
>>>>> this point. I will let it be, and you can go on with your crusade.
>>>>
>>>> And I guess you may continue offering ridiculous excuses for
>>>> horrible behavior.
>>>
>>> From this statement I take it that you are upset and feeling nasty.
>>
>> I see it as an "in kind" response to your "crusade" comment.
>>>
>>>>>>>> History repeats itself. Did the fact that Fischer's
>>>>>>>> chess genius got him a free pass for his hate speech for most
>>>>>>>> of his life embolden Mr. Truong to spew his hate-filled
>>>>>>>> obscenity? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that
>>>>>>>> Truong noticed what Fischer got away with and then
>>>>>>>> felt protected by having a chess genius for a wife.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My impression was that for a time the media profited off of Fischer's
>>>>>>> bizarreness in the same sense that they did with John McEnroe, Jimmy
>>>>>>> Connors, or Phil Hellmuth. I regard the promotion of a "bad boy" image
>>>>>>> by the media in American sports and gaming as a societal character flaw.
>>>>>>> When he went off the deep end with his 9/11 comments, he suddenly became
>>>>>>> poisonous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't the way it happened. For a long time, Fischer was well
>>>>>> beyond "bizarre" into the realm of offensive hate speech.
>>>>>> The American chess community to a large extent pretended
>>>>>> that it didn't exist (not wanting to burn any bridges lest he
>>>>>> "heroically" return to game one day). His 9/11 comments were so
>>>>>> offensive that they did trigger a response.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that you are very upset both with Fischer and with the American
>>>>> chess community.
>>>>
>>>> Hardly upset. But I do think that the failure to have standards
>>>> of decent human beings (Parr's original point of celebration)
>>>> is certainly nothing to brag about.
>>>
>>> What are the standards of decent human beings that you refer to? Do you
>>> understand that such a topic is the subject of widespread differences around
>>> the world? Are your standards faith-based or humanist in nature? How do you
>>> propose to advance your concept of these standards within the American chess
>>> community?
>>
>> Again, pretending that there are complications when there are none.
>
> I asked a simple question. You ask us to be concerned about standards, yet
> you can not supply us with information about what they are...

Because nobody (apparently including yourself if your denials
are to be believed) disputes that the conduct was
inappropriate.



>
>> If you want to offer *your* defense of 9/11 and posting widescale
>> obscenity in others' names, feel free to do so. Otherwise, the details
>> of how we arrive at a judgement that, say, mass killing of innocents
>> is wrong, are irrelevant.
>
> I have not defended 9/11 or obscene postings. Quite the opposite. You need
> to get your facts straight.

Exactly. But your point is idiotic until you do defend them.


>
>>>>>>> I do not see how this connects to Mr. Truong. Explain if you will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Truong's obscenity-laden posts as the Fake Sam Sloan (and others) are
>>>>>> analogous to Fischer's hate speech. It's conduct.worthy of
>>>>>> condemnation - largely absent.
>>>>>
>>>>> The allegations against Mr. Truong are currently in litigation. The
>>>>> system of justice is working in its slow and inexorable fashion. I want
>>>>> to wait until we have a result before I venture to make any sort of
>>>>> statement like you have about the allegations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sigh. It is amazing that people have such little grasp of the
>>>> purpose of our legal system.
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of the litigation is to determine whether
>>>> Sloan and Gordon should be compensated for their "damages".
>>>> Period. It has *no* relevance to the issue of the American
>>>> chess community and its standards.
>>>
>>> If the cases are brought to trial there will be opportunities to uncover
>>> facts relevant to chess governance that may otherwise never come to light.
>>> One of the possible outcomes of either of these cases is that one of the
>>> plaintiffs may win on one aspect of their case and be awarded a dollar in
>>> damages. I will be most interested to find out what happens.
>>
>> Hooray for you. It has nothing to do with chess being a community with some
>> minimal standards of behavior. That's my objective.
>
> If it is your objective and you want to make a public issue out of it, why are
> you so reluctant to tell us more about these standards of yours? If we take
> you seriously, how will know how to apply these standards to future cases?

I'm not going for your red herring. We're talking about a couple of rather
obvious cases of inappropriate behavior and the chess community's
(non) reaction to them.



>
>>>> If, as seems likely, Sloan and Gordon prove not capable
>>>> of competently negotiating the court system, or if the
>>>> damages are deemed negligible, it does not make
>>>> Mr. Truong's behavior less abominable, or worthy of
>>>> condemnation. It just saves him some money.
>>>
>>> You seem to be in the mood to condemn Mr. Truong and do not believe that
>>> either of the lawsuits serve any of your purposes. What will you do, file
>>> your own lawsuit?
>>
>> I admit I am not a fan of frivolous litigation. I don't believe obscene and
>> fraudulent Usenet postings of this type should be a matter of
>> concern to the government. It *should* be a matter of concern to
>> chess players however, because it demonstrates the obvious
>> unfitness of Mr. Truong to act in an executive capacity.
>>
>> In this case, the litigants are essentially making a mockery
>> of the legal system, filing mass quanitities of rambling drivel.
>> A properly filed suit would be one thing (I might still be
>> inclined to feel it wasn't an issue for the courts but could
>> respect that others feel differently) This is little more than
>> an insult to the justice system.
>
> So are you saying that in your opinion the allegations against Mr. Truong are
> not properly a matter for the justice system?
>
> Please expand on your proposal for dealing with them.

There is a world beyond government. I have never sued
anybody in my life. That is not to say that I feel like I'm living
in Utopia.



>>>>> If the two cases are dismissed, I will be deeply disappointed. I see them
>>>>> as an opportunity to bring to light information regarding why there is so
>>>>> much strife in US chess governance.
>>>>>
>>>>> The USCF imposter, whoever he and/or she is finally judged to be, did real
>>>>> damage to the US chess community. If I were on a jury that had determined
>>>>> guilt, I would be hoping for the maximum civil or criminal penalties, as
>>>>> the case may be, allowed by law.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not see an analogy where you do between Fischer's behavior and that
>>>>> of the USCF impostor. Even if there were some kind of analogy, that is
>>>>> not a causal relationship. However, the actions of the USCF impostor
>>>>> appear to have upset you to a like degree.
>>>>
>>>> Again, not so much as the American chess community's
>>>> lacking standards that decent human being should have.
>>>> By not holding chessplayers to standards that virtually
>>>> everybody else must adhere to, is harmful.
>>>
>>> Again, you seem to be deeply upset about the standards issue and how it
>>> relates to the chess community. What are these standards? How do you
>>> propose to advance your interpretation of desirable human behavior within
>>> this community?
>>
>> Again, if you want to offer *your* defense of 9/11 or posting widescale
>> obscenity in others' names, feel free to do so. Otherwise, the details
>> of how we arrive at a judgement that, say, mass killing of innocents
>> is wrong, are irrelevant.
>>
>> Pointing out that theoretically there could be gray areas is not a
>> valid reason to never do anything. You've used that faulty logic
>> a number of times now - perhaps you'd do better reflecting
>> on your error than worrying about whether or not I am "upset".
>
> Again, I have not defended 9/11 or obscene postings. Quite the opposite. You
> need to get your facts straight.

You need to straighten out your logic. If you concede that the behavior
was inappropriate, then stop bringing up hypothetical possibilities
concerning behavior which is questionably appropriate.


>
> Do you really have anything of substance to say about standards in chess
> communities or is this just frustrated venting?

If I am venting it is because you are being so obtuse. But I will
take a deep breath and try to be patient.

Re:standards my main concern is that chess would do
better if it moved to the mainstream (where the people
are) - stop condoning genocide etc.


>>>>>> Chess declares itself as a community without standards. That
>>>>>> does it no good. Or even worse, if I understand you correctly,
>>>>>> you consider the lack of standards a virtue to be touted.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not believe that it is the role of gaming organizations to engage in
>>>>> mock judicial proceedings against people who are not members of the
>>>>> organization.
>>>>
>>>> Anything goes. Right?
>>>
>>> Is this part of your standards?
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker



        
Date: 23 Jul 2008 19:37:04
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:22:10 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>> Ask the philosophers, "what is the ontological status of the good"?
>> And watch 'em shuffle and dance.

>The article at the plato site that I gave a link to is rather lengthy
>and considers many aspects of morality.

At times it was difficult to keep track of which shell covered the
golden pea.

> Later in the article the author
>attempts to produce a synthesis of his philosophical findings regarding
>normative morality in the form of a new definition:

>"Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons,
>governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or
>harm as its goal."

Now, if "evil" and "harm" can be defined without reference to
situation and culture, we'll be well on our way to solving some
difficult problems.

>Since when is it the role of our USCF to make moral judgments about the
>political speech of people who are not even members of the organization?
> And what gives them the right to pronounce the sentence of
>symbolically exiling this man who is not a member?

Here's where we start converging. I share your dislike of a chess
organization excommunicating people for what they say or write. While
I believe the Cosmos is largely indifferent to this, I dislike it
intensely.

>Bobby is dead. He lived a very disturbed life. He was brilliant at
>chess. That is enough. Let him rest in peace.

And we can tend to his games, not his speeches.


  
Date: 23 Jul 2008 06:38:10
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Jul 22, 4:04=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Kane wrote:
>
> > "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:05:24 -0700, "David Kane"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]m=
...
>
> >>>> =A0 =A0 In many ways Bobby put himself beyond the pale
> >>>> of decent men, but that does not mean his membership
> >>>> in the USCF should have been revoked.
>
> >>> As usual, Parr understands nothing. Fischer is known to the
> >>> world solely because he played chess very well. When
> >>> he was celebrating the terrorist actions, that reflects poorly
> >>> on chessplayers as a group. (We, of course, know that
> >>> Fischer had been nuts for a long time, but there are
> >>> many who know the Fischer name, but not his mental
> >>> history)
>
> >> I think anybody who listened to the broadcast, =A0or read transcripts =
of
> >> it would have to have been aware of his mental condition.
>
> > Perhaps. But stories like this can spread without the full
> > context.
>
> > "Did you hear that chessplayer Bobby
> > Fischer applauded 9/11?"
>
> > Though the numbers may not be great in either case, I'd
> > be willing to bet that the number who heard something
> > like my sentence above far outnumbered those who
> > listened to the broadcast in full.
>
> >>> What the USCF did was a symbolic gesture distancing
> >>> itself from his words. It had no practical impact (Fischer
> >>> not having been a member for decades) but simply
> >>> showed that he did not speak for the American chess
> >>> community.
>
> >> It's kinda like a poetry society disowning Ezra Pound. =A0Alternatives
> >> were possible, such as a USCF statement deploring Fischer's remarks.
>
> > No doubt you are right - I am not micro-analyzing every
> > aspect of the resolution. I am merely pointing ou that it was
> > encouraging to see action of any kind - given a chess world
> > full of apologists like Larry Parrs and his ilk. These people
> > argue that chessplayers (if they are good enough) are on a
> > higher plane - unconstrained by the rules made for the rest
> > of humanity.
>
> Have there been any serious sociological studies to determine how much
> insanity infests the chess world? =A0I imagine it is a fair bit higher
> than the norm.
>
> I greatly admired Fischer's chess and his fighting spirit (until he lost
> it). =A0I also thought he was quite loony as far back as the sixties.
>
> On a tangent, I have been musing lately over popular moral judgments
> made by many in America. =A0One that interests me is the placement of
> Hitler at the bottom of a hypothetical scale of evil -- perhaps joined
> by Stalin. =A0It has been said that history is written by the victors in
> war. =A0What about the losers and their story? =A0Having thoroughly naile=
d
> Hitler and Stalin to the base of our totem of evil, can we then turn our
> attention to the victors?
>
> I wish I knew more about history. =A0That will have to wait for future
> lifetimes.... =A0A scholar seeking approximate moral objectivity towards
> this totem of evil might ask the question, "Who was ultimately
> responsible for the tragedies of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire
> bombings of Dresden and other German civilian targets." =A0Would that be
> Truman and Churchill? =A0If so, where should they be placed on the totem
> of evil? =A0Or does victory cleanse all stains of evil?

I do not like to comment on non-chess matters here, but I can't quite
let this pass. War-time leaders often must make decisions that must
seem horrible even to them, since the death of large numbers of people
may depend on their choice. Truman and Churchill, fundamentally good
men, faced these difficult decisions many times. We can disagree with
their decisions (and I do with some), but it is very easy to see that
each was made for what seemed at the time like a morally defensible
reason. Horrible as it was, and most of us think it was not justified
today because it is so horrible to contemplate, the decision to bomb
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was on a calculation that this would save lives
(on both sides, even) when compared to an actual invasion of Japan.
Well worthy of moral argument, but it was not a decision that should
brand the person making it as evil. These decisions were not made
simply because the war leaders wanted to see more Germans and Japanese
people die.

Hitler and Stalin are not considered evil because of wartime actions.
Yes, the bombing of London (for example) was unprovoked, but this is
not why we call Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (and unfortunately we could
make a long list here, and there are still world leaders I believe
deserve the label today) evil; it was part of a plan to make Britain
surrender. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others intentionally killed
huge numbers of people in non-war situations, simply out of malice
towards their perceived opponents, or to keep people in such a state
of fear that nobody would dare to oppose them. This is entirely
different than anything Churchil or Truman did, and you should be more
cautious before mentioning these as part of the same discussion. It is
not a matter only of victory and defeat. Losers of other wars are not
raised up as evil monsters. Even if we restrict ourselves to World War
II, there is a reason that Hitler is viewed as evil, while Mussolini
is merely viewed as reprehensible; you may also notice that the World
War I losers are not generally viewed as great evil figures despite
(for example) use of mustard gas.

In my view, one kind of political naivete is to make every political
opponent into a monster. I know Republicans and Democrats who see
enormous conspiracies of evil on the part of their political opponents
in the other party. Although I have strong opinions about some of the
political issues, I realize that reasonable arguments can be made on
the other side, and I like most Americans realize that neither Obama
nor McCain should in any way be viewed as evil people. Another type of
political naivete in my view is to think that there are no evil
people, and that all world leaders are doing what they feel is best
for their countries. Negotiating with Mugabe after he brutalizes his
own people to keep power is not the same as negotiating with Indian
leaders, no matter how you feel about India's decision to go nuclear.

OK, time for me to shut up about actually history, which I really know
little about. Now if you want to discuss whether Staunton was good or
evil, or who deserves blame in the Steinitz vs Zukertort negotiations,
then I will happily jump back into the fray.

Jerry Spinrad


> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



   
Date: 23 Jul 2008 08:35:43
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 22, 4:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Kane wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:05:24 -0700, "David Kane"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]m...
>>>>>> In many ways Bobby put himself beyond the pale
>>>>>> of decent men, but that does not mean his membership
>>>>>> in the USCF should have been revoked.
>>>>> As usual, Parr understands nothing. Fischer is known to the
>>>>> world solely because he played chess very well. When
>>>>> he was celebrating the terrorist actions, that reflects poorly
>>>>> on chessplayers as a group. (We, of course, know that
>>>>> Fischer had been nuts for a long time, but there are
>>>>> many who know the Fischer name, but not his mental
>>>>> history)
>>>> I think anybody who listened to the broadcast, or read transcripts of
>>>> it would have to have been aware of his mental condition.
>>> Perhaps. But stories like this can spread without the full
>>> context.
>>> "Did you hear that chessplayer Bobby
>>> Fischer applauded 9/11?"
>>> Though the numbers may not be great in either case, I'd
>>> be willing to bet that the number who heard something
>>> like my sentence above far outnumbered those who
>>> listened to the broadcast in full.
>>>>> What the USCF did was a symbolic gesture distancing
>>>>> itself from his words. It had no practical impact (Fischer
>>>>> not having been a member for decades) but simply
>>>>> showed that he did not speak for the American chess
>>>>> community.
>>>> It's kinda like a poetry society disowning Ezra Pound. Alternatives
>>>> were possible, such as a USCF statement deploring Fischer's remarks.
>>> No doubt you are right - I am not micro-analyzing every
>>> aspect of the resolution. I am merely pointing ou that it was
>>> encouraging to see action of any kind - given a chess world
>>> full of apologists like Larry Parrs and his ilk. These people
>>> argue that chessplayers (if they are good enough) are on a
>>> higher plane - unconstrained by the rules made for the rest
>>> of humanity.
>> Have there been any serious sociological studies to determine how much
>> insanity infests the chess world? I imagine it is a fair bit higher
>> than the norm.
>>
>> I greatly admired Fischer's chess and his fighting spirit (until he lost
>> it). I also thought he was quite loony as far back as the sixties.
>>
>> On a tangent, I have been musing lately over popular moral judgments
>> made by many in America. One that interests me is the placement of
>> Hitler at the bottom of a hypothetical scale of evil -- perhaps joined
>> by Stalin. It has been said that history is written by the victors in
>> war. What about the losers and their story? Having thoroughly nailed
>> Hitler and Stalin to the base of our totem of evil, can we then turn our
>> attention to the victors?
>>
>> I wish I knew more about history. That will have to wait for future
>> lifetimes.... A scholar seeking approximate moral objectivity towards
>> this totem of evil might ask the question, "Who was ultimately
>> responsible for the tragedies of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire
>> bombings of Dresden and other German civilian targets." Would that be
>> Truman and Churchill? If so, where should they be placed on the totem
>> of evil? Or does victory cleanse all stains of evil?
>
> I do not like to comment on non-chess matters here, but I can't quite
> let this pass. War-time leaders often must make decisions that must
> seem horrible even to them, since the death of large numbers of people
> may depend on their choice. Truman and Churchill, fundamentally good
> men, faced these difficult decisions many times. We can disagree with
> their decisions (and I do with some), but it is very easy to see that
> each was made for what seemed at the time like a morally defensible
> reason. Horrible as it was, and most of us think it was not justified
> today because it is so horrible to contemplate, the decision to bomb
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki was on a calculation that this would save lives
> (on both sides, even) when compared to an actual invasion of Japan.
> Well worthy of moral argument, but it was not a decision that should
> brand the person making it as evil. These decisions were not made
> simply because the war leaders wanted to see more Germans and Japanese
> people die.
>
> Hitler and Stalin are not considered evil because of wartime actions.
> Yes, the bombing of London (for example) was unprovoked, but this is
> not why we call Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (and unfortunately we could
> make a long list here, and there are still world leaders I believe
> deserve the label today) evil; it was part of a plan to make Britain
> surrender. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others intentionally killed
> huge numbers of people in non-war situations, simply out of malice
> towards their perceived opponents, or to keep people in such a state
> of fear that nobody would dare to oppose them. This is entirely
> different than anything Churchil or Truman did, and you should be more
> cautious before mentioning these as part of the same discussion. It is
> not a matter only of victory and defeat. Losers of other wars are not
> raised up as evil monsters. Even if we restrict ourselves to World War
> II, there is a reason that Hitler is viewed as evil, while Mussolini
> is merely viewed as reprehensible; you may also notice that the World
> War I losers are not generally viewed as great evil figures despite
> (for example) use of mustard gas.
>
> In my view, one kind of political naivete is to make every political
> opponent into a monster. I know Republicans and Democrats who see
> enormous conspiracies of evil on the part of their political opponents
> in the other party. Although I have strong opinions about some of the
> political issues, I realize that reasonable arguments can be made on
> the other side, and I like most Americans realize that neither Obama
> nor McCain should in any way be viewed as evil people. Another type of
> political naivete in my view is to think that there are no evil
> people, and that all world leaders are doing what they feel is best
> for their countries. Negotiating with Mugabe after he brutalizes his
> own people to keep power is not the same as negotiating with Indian
> leaders, no matter how you feel about India's decision to go nuclear.
>
> OK, time for me to shut up about actually history, which I really know
> little about. Now if you want to discuss whether Staunton was good or
> evil, or who deserves blame in the Steinitz vs Zukertort negotiations,
> then I will happily jump back into the fray.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>

Well, I so looked forward to the promised discussion of WWI, and that
never materialized.


The technologies that were used in the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
as well as the firebombing of German civilian population centers both
are examples of "weapons of mass destruction" used in a way that should
cause one to step back and reflect with concern. Before assigning
personal blame for these acts, it is well to note that by themselves
they were most terrible crimes against humanity. They were evil, and
yes, war is hell.

So, if weapons of mass destruction are employed in war -- to terrible
effect, who is ultimately responsible? If we try to reboot our moral
compass so that we can see evil no matter what side of a border it lies
on, or what loyalties are involved, then how should we consider these
kind of acts?

Today, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has frequently been
tossed about as justification for going to war in Iraq. It appears to
me that it was wrongly used by the current US administration to justify
illegally invading another country, occupying it, and then attempting to
set up a corrupt puppet government. Meanwhile, I hear that oil
companies, Haliburton, Black Water and others are enjoying record
profits while the public coffers are being sacked to finance them.
Perhaps there is a more noble way to view this, but I haven't found one
I could believe.

Okay, relating this back to Bobby Fischer. I see no more evil in Bobby
Fischer's 9/11 outbursts than I do with the spewing you might hear from
a nut on a soapbox on any corner of Manhattan. It is a shame that his
remarks were broadcast and amplified by the media. Bobby did not
firebomb or nuke anyone.

If the USCF had simply made a statement to distance itself from his
remarks that should have been sufficient. But they took the extra step
of sanctioning him which was not necessary. On this I agree with Mr. Parr.

You may disagree with my views, but if we truly want to deal with moral
issues, I suggest we look past the ravings of a mentally disturbed chess
player and seriously consider real problems of our past, and those
ongoing today.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


  
Date: 23 Jul 2008 06:13:05
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Jul 23, 6:03=A0am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> When was Churchill ever under fire?
> When were Hitler, Truman and deGaulle
> under fire?

All served bravely in World War I, Hilter as a corporal and
Churchill, DeGaulle and Truman as officers. Hitler and DeGaulle were
both wounded, more than once as I recall. Churchill served in the
British Army in the late 1890s, in such varied locales as Cuba, India,
and Africa. He was captured by the Boers in South Africa in 1898. He
returned to the army in November 1915, and saw front line service as a
lieutenant colonel with the Royal Scots Fusiliers.
So it would seem that all four had personal experience of wartime
gunfire.



  
Date: 23 Jul 2008 04:41:55
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
Right! Let's kick everybody out of the USCF who supports George W.
Bush.

Terrorists should be given no quarter in the USCF.


  
Date: 22 Jul 2008 18:48:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Jul 22, 5:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Have there been any serious sociological studies to determine how much
> insanity infests the chess world? I imagine it is a fair bit higher
> than the norm.

How could they go about this-- through the
CIA, the USCF and the Association of Insane
Lunatics (the AIL)?


> I greatly admired Fischer's chess and his fighting spirit (until he lost
> it). I also thought he was quite loony as far back as the sixties.

That is when the evil Russians first began
plotting to keep him from becoming world
champ-- that is, before Edmar Mednis beat
him, seemingly demonstrating he was no
real threat at all.


> On a tangent, I have been musing lately over popular moral judgments
> made by many in America. One that interests me is the placement of
> Hitler at the bottom of a hypothetical scale of evil -- perhaps joined
> by Stalin. It has been said that history is written by the victors in
> war. What about the losers and their story? Having thoroughly nailed
> Hitler and Stalin to the base of our totem of evil, can we then turn our
> attention to the victors?

Look, you can't maintain that the victors
write the story and at the same time say
that Mr. Stalin was evil, since it was the
Russians who really bore the brunt of the
burden in defeating Germany. It's like
saying Mr. Churchill was a wimp, then
noting how well he held out under fire.


> I wish I knew more about history.

Me too.


> That will have to wait for future
> lifetimes.... A scholar seeking approximate moral objectivity towards
> this totem of evil might ask the question, "Who was ultimately
> responsible for the tragedies of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire
> bombings of Dresden and other German civilian targets." Would that be
> Truman and Churchill? If so, where should they be placed on the totem
> of evil? Or does victory cleanse all stains of evil?

I keep seeing comments to the effect that
had Mr. Truman not used the bomb, he
would in effect have "wasted" all the money
that went into its development. In addition,
the "planned" (if indeed one can use that
term here) invasion of Japan was supposedly
weighed against using the bomb, though that
is quite obviously a false dichotomy.

In retrospect, many of the decisions of
/both sides/ look downright idiotic, but the
fact remains that these idiots were the top
ranking people, entitled to make whatever
blunders they wanted, thinking themselves
smart -- no matter how things turned out.
In fact, it often happens that such people
write books afterward, telling everyone
just how smart they were for having come
out the winners, even if by sheer luck.

I have a movie -- a documentary, really --
which tells the story of how Mr. Hitler first
won, and then later lost the war, as told by
the victors who saw through the sham. It
features far fewer "smart" politicians, and
as far as I could tell, no false dichotomies
or other nonsense of that sort. However,
there is a peculiar slant which lays the
blame for defeat solely on the shoulders
of one man-- Adolf Hitler, which seems a
bit strange.


-- help bot







   
Date: 23 Jul 2008 12:03:15
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: AW: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
help bot wrote:
> On Jul 22, 5:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Look, you can't maintain that the victors
> write the story and at the same time say
> that Mr. Stalin was evil,

Yes you can, because ultimately Ronny from Hollywood
defeated the Evil Empire.
If the Evil Empire had defeated Ronny from
Hollywood history would be written quite differently.


> since it was the
> Russians who really bore the brunt of the
> burden in defeating Germany. It's like
> saying Mr. Churchill was a wimp, then
> noting how well he held out under fire.

When was Churchill ever under fire?
When were Hitler, Truman and deGaulle
under fire?

[...]


  
Date: 22 Jul 2008 14:21:55
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
On Jul 22, 4:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Have there been any serious sociological studies to determine how much
> insanity infests the chess world? I imagine it is a fair bit higher
> than the norm.
>
> I greatly admired Fischer's chess and his fighting spirit (until he lost
> it). I also thought he was quite loony as far back as the sixties.
>
> On a tangent, I have been musing lately over popular moral judgments
> made by many in America. One that interests me is the placement of
> Hitler at the bottom of a hypothetical scale of evil -- perhaps joined
> by Stalin. It has been said that history is written by the victors in
> war. What about the losers and their story? Having thoroughly nailed
> Hitler and Stalin to the base of our totem of evil, can we then turn our
> attention to the victors?

Good point. Now, what do you think about the terrorists that took
control of Afghanistan?

Do you think that they should be tried in Guant=E1namo?

Sam Sloan


   
Date: 23 Jul 2008 00:03:20
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: AW: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing
samsloan wrote:
> On Jul 22, 4:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Have there been any serious sociological studies to determine how
>> much insanity infests the chess world? I imagine it is a fair bit
>> higher than the norm.
>>
>> I greatly admired Fischer's chess and his fighting spirit (until he
>> lost it). I also thought he was quite loony as far back as the
>> sixties.
>>
>> On a tangent, I have been musing lately over popular moral judgments
>> made by many in America. One that interests me is the placement of
>> Hitler at the bottom of a hypothetical scale of evil -- perhaps
>> joined by Stalin. It has been said that history is written by the
>> victors in war. What about the losers and their story? Having
>> thoroughly nailed Hitler and Stalin to the base of our totem of
>> evil, can we then turn our attention to the victors?
>
> Good point. Now, what do you think about the terrorists that took
> control of Afghanistan?

Terrorists of which nationality? American? Russian? Afghan?

>
> Do you think that they should be tried in Guantánamo?
>

If your notions of justice are that primitive....

Always remember the great Edwin Meese:
"You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's
contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a
suspect."

So why do you even need a trial?


> Sam Sloan



 
Date: 21 Jul 2008 00:26:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF
On Jul 20, 2:55 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > It was to the shame of the United States Chess Federation that Bobby
> > Fischer was kicked out and not allowed back in by the negative votes
> > of Goichberg and Channing.

> A slight diversion from sandbaggers and such as Charlie Manson, no doubt the
> next paragraph will make all clear...

Indeed, both CM and BF encouraged their
respective toad-eaters to do harm to others;
and both were incompetent at identifying their
true adversaries-- a dangerous combination of
traits.

What does Mr. Sloan's slip-up tell us about
his feelings toward the above-listed board
members? The poor chap misses the mark
so often it is hard to tell a Freudian slip from
a meaningless blunder; but then he will
sometimes turn around and spit out an
observation worthy of the great Confucious,
such as this: "The comments by Phil Innes
are so ridiculous I see no point in dignifying
them with a response". (Well, merely
responding does not in itself lend dignity,
but the intended meaning rings true in an
almost universal way.)

It would be hard to imagine people getting
so confused over what BF said about the
events of 9/11, but now there is no need for
imagination; folks don't seem to recall much
of anything correctly, and must now rely
upon the Louis Blair time machine to get
even a glimpse of the facts... .

The fact is, Mr. Fischer talked about what
he called "a Seven Days in May scenario";
he prattled on about sending folks back to
Europe and Africa; the Twin Towers were
nothing to him, yet Mr. Sloan gets himself
in a fix thinking about exactly when the
towers fell relative to BF's infamous radio
chat on the same day. In fact, a lot of
Nor-easterners get hung up on just the
comments that applied to their locale,
more-or-less ignoring the broader issues.

I've yet to see the movie to which BF
referred, but I've read a bit about it; it was
not about New York (and in fact, BF had
long since moved to the other coast and
had issues with the Pasadena, California
police department). Mr. Fischer was
quick to point out that the USA had
supported Israel, which in turn had
(according to BF) done terrible things to
Palestine-- not to mention all our other
crimes. Well, BF seemed to have missed
that we Americans cannot just give the
land we "stole" from the Indians back,
because in the process "we" killed most
of them off; raising the dead is beyond
even the power of our mighty government
(else they would undoubtedly revive BF
and force him to pay his back taxes).


-- help bot





 
Date: 20 Jul 2008 21:30:46
From:
Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF


samsloan wrote:
> My August 2006 motion reversing the 2002 motion passed with me,
> Beatriz Marinello and Tanner voting in favor. However, by the
> November 2006 meeting it was apparent that the vote had been ignored
> and Fischer was still not listed as a USCF member. So, I called for
> another vote. It happened that Tanner had left the meeting early, so
> we did not have his vote in favor of reinstating Fischer. Without his
> swing vote, my motion lost in a 3-3 tie. Unfortunately, Tanner
> resigned shortly thereafter.

>
> Sam Sloan



Reality bites, Sam. In the first place, the vote on your August 2006
motion was 4-1-2, with Goichberg voting _in favor_:

"EB07-006 =96 (Sloan) Moved, that the expulsion of Bobby Fischer in 2002
by objections procedure (EB02-40) is hereby vacated.
PASSED 4-1-2. Channing opposed, Schultz and Hough abstained."

In the second place, your November motion was not to reinstate
Fischer, it was to assign him an ID number and list him on the web
page. Not the same thing. Since there was zero chance of Fischer
playing in a U.S. tournament, the motion was pointless
micromanagement. And, it failed 2-3-1, so it would have failed even if
Tanner had still been present.

"EB07-041 =96 (Sloan) In view of the fact that Bobby Fischer is listed
as a US Grandmaster by FIDE, the office will assign a USCF ID number
to Bobby Fischer and list him on the website.
FAILED 2-3-1 with Marinello and Sloan in favor, Channing, Goichberg,
and Hough opposed , and Schultz abstaining."


There was (and is) a plausible argument to be made that no one should
be deprived of USCF membership for non-chess reasons. It is a subject
on which honest men may disagree. Unfortunately, the argument was
tainted by its association with you.


 
Date: 20 Jul 2008 19:41:10
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF
Regarding Fischer not having a USCF ID number, International Master
Raymond Weinstein also did not have a USCF ID number and was not
listed on the MSA until I pointed it out.

Weinstein won the life membership in 1958 when he won the US Junior
Championship. However, his last tournament was the 1965 US
Championship. After that he went into the lunatic asylum and has not
played tournament chess since.

After I pointed out to Goichberg and several others that Weinstein had
been left off the MSA he was put on there.

You can tell by his relatively high USCF ID number that he was not
given an ID number when they were first assigned.

http://uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12397560

Thus, players who had not played in USCF rated tournaments in a long
time and were out of touch were not given USCF ID numbers. These
included Fischer and Weinstein.

I have asked numerous former USCF Presidents and board members and
none of them can remember receiving any request from Fischer to cancel
his USCF membership. They certainly would have remembered this if it
had happened.

Joe Lux, the maker of the motion to make all US Grandmasters into life
members, states that it was his intention that Bobby Fischer be a
member.

The 2002 motion by Frank Brady canceling Fischer's USCF membership
clearly indicates that Fischer was considered a member up until that
time.

My August 2006 motion reversing the 2002 motion passed with me,
Beatriz Marinello and Tanner voting in favor. However, by the
November 2006 meeting it was apparent that the vote had been ignored
and Fischer was still not listed as a USCF member. So, I called for
another vote. It happened that Tanner had left the meeting early, so
we did not have his vote in favor of reinstating Fischer. Without his
swing vote, my motion lost in a 3-3 tie. Unfortunately, Tanner
resigned shortly thereafter.

Both Grandmasters Lombardy and Benko spoke to Fischer about this.
Fischer told them that he appreciated my efforts to reinstate him in
the USCF. He certainly expressed no objection. Otherwise, I would not
have pressed for his reinstatement.

I am aware that Bill Goichberg was opposed to letting Fischer back
into the USCF because of Fischer's anti-Semitic statements (and NOT
because of his statements on 9/11). I can appreciate that Goichberg is
sensitive on this subject, but I believe that such reasons can never
form the basis for excluding someone from the USCF.

Sam Sloan



 
Date: 20 Jul 2008 18:47:54
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing (was: Ed Trice should be
On Jul 20, 5:40=A0pm, <[email protected] >
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.44.134.237) wrote:
7 ...
7 A few minutes later in the same broadcast, Fischer said,
7 "That's the danger" that somebody might be killed.
7 ...

_
Question: There are fears, Bobby, that, ah,
this might, ah, ah, spark, ah, ah, something
worse like a, ah, third world war. You think
that's possible?
_
Fischer: I think it's possible. Unfortunately,
that's the big danger.

_
On Jul 20, 5:40 pm, <[email protected] >
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.44.134.237) wrote:
7 ...
7 ... When the airplane first crashed into the
7 World Trade Center, many thought that it was
7 either an accident or a pilotless-drone. ...

_
"... They hijacked all these planes. ..." - Fischer


 
Date: 20 Jul 2008 18:42:25
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF
On Jul 20, 12:39=A0pm, <[email protected] >
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.44.134.237) wrote:

7 ...
7 The "Delegates Actions of Continuing Interest",
7 Section =A017, page 35 on the 2008 Delegate's Call
7 clearly provides that all grandmasters registered as
7 US Players by FIDE are automatically USCF
7 members.
7 ...

_
martinak (Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:18 am) wrote:
7 samsloan wrote:
7 7 As far as your offer is concerned, thank you but
7 7 according to the delegate mandate Fischer is
7 7 already a member of the USCF.
7
7 That doesn't appear to me to be logically true.
7
7 Let's recap the apparent historical sequence of
7 events:
7
7 1. Fischer resigned his membership in the 1970s
7 - probably before USCF ids were assigned. I
7 checked the USCF Golden Database from 2001
7 and he was not a member at that time.
7
7 2. In 1980 and 1991 the delegates passed: 17.
7 USCF Membership shall be awarded to
7 International Grandmasters, including Women
7 Grandmasters, when it is determined by the
7 Executive Director that a player is registering
7 with FIDE as an American player, or when an
7 American is awarded the title by FIDE. (1980,
7 1991)
7
7 Since he had already registered with FIDE and
7 was awarded his title long before 1980, these
7 would not cause him to be eligible. (Notice the
7 "is registering", not "has registered" and "is
7 awarded", not "was awarded"). In particular,
7 in 2006 he isn't being awarded the title or
7 registering as an American. So the current
7 ED would have no reason to award him a
7 membership.
7
7 3. In 2002, the policy board passed:
7 "The US Chess Federation informs Grandmaster
7 Robert J. Fischer that, because of his deplorable
7 public remarks in support of terrorist actions, his
7 right to membership in the United States Chess
7 Federation is cancelled. The Interim Executive
7 Director is asked to write to FIDE and to the US
7 Chess Trust about this action and about the
7 public remarks of Mr. Fischer, with a request
7 that those organizations join with the USCF in
7 condemnation of these remarks."
7
7 Since he was not a member, this did not take
7 away his membership. It just did not allow him
7 to become a member in the future.
7
7 4. The new motion rescinded the 2002 motion.
7 So, it does not make him a member - since he
7 was not one prior to the 2002 motion. It does
7 again allow him to become a member. So he
7 could pay for a membership. Or by the
7 delegates motion, if he "is registering" with
7 FIDE as USA, then he could receive a free
7 membership. However, to do that he would
7 presumably need to have FIDE deregister him
7 from the USA first and then re-register.
7
7 - Tom Martinak


 
Date: 20 Jul 2008 18:24:53
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing (was: Ed Trice should be
On Jul 20, 5:40=A0pm, <[email protected] >
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.44.134.237) wrote:
7 ...
7 A few minutes later in the same broadcast, Fischer said,
7 "That's the danger" that somebody might be killed.
7 ...

_
Question: There are fears, Bobby, that, ah,
this might, ah, ah, spark, ah, ah, something
worse like a, ah, third world war. You think
that's possible?
_
Fischer: I think it's possible. Unfortunately,
that's the big danger.

_
On Jul 20, 5:40 pm, <[email protected] >
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.63.80.230) wrote:
7 ...
7 ... When the airplane first crashed into the
7 World Trade Center, many thought that it was
7 either an accident or a pilotless-drone. ...

_
"... They hijacked all these planes. ..." - Fischer


 
Date: 20 Jul 2008 18:15:48
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing (was: Ed Trice should be
On Jul 20, 5:40=A0pm, <[email protected] >
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.63.80.230) wrote:
7 ...
7 A few minutes later in the same broadcast, Fischer said,
7 "That's the danger" that somebody might be killed.
7 ...

_
Question: There are fears, Bobby, that, ah,
this might, ah, ah, spark, ah, ah, something
worse like a, ah, third world war. You think
that's possible?
_
Fischer: I think it's possible. Unfortunately,
that's the big danger.

_
On Jul 20, 5:40 pm, <[email protected] >
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.63.80.230) wrote:
7 ...
7 ... When the airplane first crashed into the
7 World Trade Center, many thought that it was
7 either an accident or a pilotless-drone. ...

_
"... They hijacked all these planes. ..." - Fischer


 
Date: 20 Jul 2008 17:40:19
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing (was: Ed Trice should be
On Jul 20, 8:27 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 20, 3:39 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The anti-US statements made by Fischer during his infamous radio
> > broadcast on 9/11 did not provide a proper basis to kick him out of
> > the USCF. As explained in the book "Bobby Fischer, The Wandering
> > King", by Hans Bohm and Kees Jongking, page 122, Fischer's comments
> > on 9/11 were made before the actual collapse of the Twin Towers of the
> > World Trade Center.
>
> I have that book in front of me at this moment, and I see see no
> such statement, on page 122 or anywhere else. However, it does make
> very clear that Fischer knew of the attacks on the World Trade Center,
> about which he said:
>
> "This is all wonderful news. F--k the USA. F--k the Jews. It is time
> for the United States to have their head kicked in. I want the United
> States wiped out! Once and for all!" -- page 119
>
> Is our Sam saying that the merit of Fischer's statements is
> contingent on a few minutes' difference in their timing? That they
> were OK if they were said after the planes had been made to crash into
> the buildings, but *_before_* the towers collapsed? That they would
> have been wrong only if said *_after_* the towers collapsed? The logic
> of this eludes me completely.

A few minutes later in the same broadcast, Fischer said, "That's the
danger" that somebody might be killed. Obviously the twin towers had
not fallen yet because after they fell it was obvious that many people
had been killed.

Also, Fischer was calling from Japan to a Radio Station in the
Philippines. Japan is 14 hours ahead of us. Thus, by the time the Twin
Towers fell it was already 9/12 in Japan.

Yes, I think it makes a difference. When the airplane first crashed
into the World Trade Center, many thought that it was either an
accident or a pilotless-drone. I certainly thought that. It was
several hours before it became apparent that it had been a suicide
attack.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 20 Jul 2008 17:27:49
From:
Subject: Sam Sloan's Delicate Sense of Timing (was: Ed Trice should be banned
On Jul 20, 3:39=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> The anti-US statements made by Fischer during his infamous radio
> broadcast on 9/11 did not provide a proper basis to kick him out of
> the USCF. As explained in the book "Bobby Fischer, The Wandering
> King", =A0by Hans Bohm and Kees Jongking, page 122, Fischer's comments
> on 9/11 were made before the actual collapse of the Twin Towers of the
> World Trade Center.

I have that book in front of me at this moment, and I see see no
such statement, on page 122 or anywhere else. However, it does make
very clear that Fischer knew of the attacks on the World Trade Center,
about which he said:

"This is all wonderful news. F--k the USA. F--k the Jews. It is time
for the United States to have their head kicked in. I want the United
States wiped out! Once and for all!" -- page 119

Is our Sam saying that the merit of Fischer's statements is
contingent on a few minutes' difference in their timing? That they
were OK if they were said after the planes had been made to crash into
the buildings, but *_before_* the towers collapsed? That they would
have been wrong only if said *_after_* the towers collapsed? The logic
of this eludes me completely.


 
Date: 20 Jul 2008 12:42:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF
The comments by Phil Innes are so ridiculous I see no point in
dignifying them with a response.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 28 Jul 2008 00:09:40
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Neil Brennen's claim to fame.
On Jul 23, 12:17=A0pm, <[email protected] >
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.85.103) wrote:

7 ...
7 Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for
7 a week at my expense since you seemed to be having a
7 hard time. I did take the precaution of copying a friend of
7 /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry Parr, so that they
7 could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
7 ...

_
"... I would like to propose a grudge match between
me and Phil Innes. ... I have been posting off and
on for years now, and no one has yet sunk so low
as to accuse me of poostering ornature." - Larry
Tapper (20 Apr 2006 06:32:59 -0700)
_
_
"... maybe I will have some filming action in [New
York city] soon, and will give you a call." - Phil
Innes (Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:52:32 GMT)
_
_
"I am not sure why you want to call me when you
are filming in New York, because I live in North
Carolina ..." - Larry Tapper (21 Apr 2006
12:06:15 -0700)
_
_
"... I'd be willing to play a match in Montpelier. ..."
- Larry Tapper (3 May 2006 10:10:14 -0700)
_
_
"... there is not the slightest chance of visiting the
carolinas this summer, and if you come here you
might be civil or take your chances ..." - Phil
Innes (Wed, 03 May 2006 17:36:17 GMT)
_
_
"... I'm ready to make an agreement to play, details
to follow pending Slothrop approval, etc. Montpelier
in the late summer or early fall would work OK for
me. ..." - Larry Tapper (4 May 2006 07:26:59 -0700)
_
_
"... i am not avoiding you, but my sched this summer
is uncertain, and besides no one in their right mind
goes to montpelier ..., burlington is better, ...
_
i also do not quite dislike you enuf for this to be a
grudge match ..." - Phil Innes (Thu, 04 May 2006
15:08:35 GMT)
_
_
"... my offer to play a match in Vermont still stands."
- Larry Tapper (22 May 2006 04:59:32 -0700)
_
_
"... You are too boring to entertain. I am not short of
chess partners." - Phil Innes (Mon, 22 May 2006
12:38:52 GMT)
_
_
"... I am also prepared to give you open-book odds
--- during the games, you may consult any printed
reference sources you wish. ..." - Larry Tapper
(20 Jun 2006 05:23:42 -0700)
_
_
"... You think you attitude earns you my time? lol!"
- Phil Innes (Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:54:58 GMT)
_
_
"... I have probably read almost everything published
in English on the [Keres-Botvinnik controversy]. ..."
- Larry Tapper (4 Aug 2006 11:32:56 -0700)
_
_
"...
let me pause a moment to ask, BTW, if you have
read Gulko's manuscript?
..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:10:28 GMT)
_
_
"Hey Dr 'Rynd' ...
_
... your ego appeared hereabouts declaring that
it had read all relevant material in English, but
when asked if it has read the Gulko manuscript
- snipped it in the response. ROFL. ..." - Phil
Innes (Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:40:12 GMT)
_
_
"Phil, that was Larry Tapper, ..." - jamesrynd
(5 Aug 2006 22:48:36 -0700)
_
_
"... I extended Dr D an invitation ...
_
A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he
had read the Gulko MSS, but in his
response he eliminated even the
question, while maintaining his superiority
over others by ..." - Phil Innes (Sun,
06 Aug 2006 12:03:14 GMT)
_
_
"... Have you admitted yet that all this started
because you posted your 'question/challenge
- whatever you want to call it' to the wrong
person? ..." - jamesrynd (6 Aug 2006
05:26:48 -0700)
_
_
"... I get confused with all the anons, especially
when they answer each other's mail <wink > and
sound so much alike.
_
If indeed Larry Tapper is the person who knows
everything, surely he or Dr Rynd, could address
the subject. ..." - Phil Innes (Sun, 06 Aug 2006
12:49:31 GMT)
_
_
"... How can anything remain on topic with your
constant ad hom attacks, which aren't even
directed at the right person? ..." - jamesrynd
(6 Aug 2006 06:33:05 -0700)
_
_
"... jamesrynd ...
...
Laugh - What I declined was to meet you! ..."
- Phil Innes (Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:50:46 GMT)
_
_
"Phil this is really getting old. It is Larry Tapper,
... who offered to meet you at the chessboard,
and you provided him with the most impolite of
declinations ..." - jamesrynd (7 Aug 2006
13:43:56 -0700)
_
_
"... I had only asked [Rynd-Dowd] if his 'all'
included a certain Gulko manuscript, which
shall we presume he had not read, ..." - Phil
Innes (Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:58:39 GMT)
_
_
"Phil - I never made any statements regarding
the Gulko manuscript or Keres-Botvinnik. I
professed no expertise on the subject, and
even Larry Tapper did not use the term 'all.'
_
PLEASE STOP CONFUSING ME WITH
LARRY TAPPER. ..." - jamesrynd (7 Aug 2006
14:40:00 -0700)
_
_
"... Since I seem to have accepted Dread
Dowd's challenge not for a few games but a
week of games, he himself backed off, and
has never made any contact - which is much
as I thought it would be. ..." - Phil Innes
(Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:15:16 GMT)
_
_
"... I never asked to play chess against [Phil
Innes], that was Larry Tapper. ..." - jamesrynd
(12 Aug 2006 09:46:27 -0700)
_
_
"... I actually responded to [Rynd-Dowd's]
initiative and accepted his challenge to play a
match, and extended it the whole week. ..."
- Phil Innes (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:08:42 GMT)
_
_
"... Larry Tapper wanted to play chess with [Phil
Innes] ..." - jamesrynd (14 Aug 2006
07:16:52 -0700)
_
_
"[addressing 'jamesrynd' as 'Larry' is] a little joke
we've neem kicking around for about a month now,
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:21:08 GMT)


  
Date: 27 Jul 2008 23:26:16
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Neil Brennen's claim to fame.
On Jul 23, 12:17=A0pm, <[email protected] >
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.85.103) wrote:

7 ...
7 Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for
7 a week at my expense since you seemed to be having a
7 hard time. I did take the precaution of copying a friend of
7 /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry Parr, so that they
7 could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
7 ...

_
"... I would like to propose a grudge match between
me and Phil Innes. ... I have been posting off and
on for years now, and no one has yet sunk so low
as to accuse me of poostering ornature." - Larry
Tapper (20 Apr 2006 06:32:59 -0700)
_
_
"... maybe I will have some filming action in [New
York city] soon, and will give you a call." - Phil
Innes (Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:52:32 GMT)
_
_
"I am not sure why you want to call me when you
are filming in New York, because I live in North
Carolina ..." - Larry Tapper (21 Apr 2006
12:06:15 -0700)
_
_
"... I'd be willing to play a match in Montpelier. ..."
- Larry Tapper (3 May 2006 10:10:14 -0700)
_
_
"... there is not the slightest chance of visiting the
carolinas this summer, and if you come here you
might be civil or take your chances ..." - Phil
Innes (Wed, 03 May 2006 17:36:17 GMT)
_
_
"... I'm ready to make an agreement to play, details
to follow pending Slothrop approval, etc. Montpelier
in the late summer or early fall would work OK for
me. ..." - Larry Tapper (4 May 2006 07:26:59 -0700)
_
_
"... i am not avoiding you, but my sched this summer
is uncertain, and besides no one in their right mind
goes to montpelier ..., burlington is better, ...
_
i also do not quite dislike you enuf for this to be a
grudge match ..." - Phil Innes (Thu, 04 May 2006
15:08:35 GMT)
_
_
"... my offer to play a match in Vermont still stands."
- Larry Tapper (22 May 2006 04:59:32 -0700)
_
_
"... You are too boring to entertain. I am not short of
chess partners." - Phil Innes (Mon, 22 May 2006
12:38:52 GMT)
_
_
"... I am also prepared to give you open-book odds
--- during the games, you may consult any printed
reference sources you wish. ..." - Larry Tapper
(20 Jun 2006 05:23:42 -0700)
_
_
"... You think you attitude earns you my time? lol!"
- Phil Innes (Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:54:58 GMT)
_
_
"Hey Dr 'Rynd' ...
_
... your ego appeared hereabouts declaring that
it had read all relevant material in English, but
when asked if it has read the Gulko manuscript
- snipped it in the response. ROFL. ..." - Phil
Innes (Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:40:12 GMT)
_
_
"Phil, that was Larry Tapper, ..." - jamesrynd
(5 Aug 2006 22:48:36 -0700)
_
_
"... I extended Dr D an invitation ...
_
A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he
had read the Gulko MSS, but in his
response he eliminated even the
question, while maintaining his superiority
over others by ..." - Phil Innes (Sun,
06 Aug 2006 12:03:14 GMT)
_
_
"... Have you admitted yet that all this started
because you posted your 'question/challenge
- whatever you want to call it' to the wrong
person? ..." - jamesrynd (6 Aug 2006
05:26:48 -0700)
_
_
"... I get confused with all the anons, especially
when they answer each other's mail <wink > and
sound so much alike.
_
If indeed Larry Tapper is the person who knows
everything, surely he or Dr Rynd, could address
the subject. ..." - Phil Innes (Sun, 06 Aug 2006
12:49:31 GMT)
_
_
"... How can anything remain on topic with your
constant ad hom attacks, which aren't even
directed at the right person? ..." - jamesrynd
(6 Aug 2006 06:33:05 -0700)
_
_
"... jamesrynd ...
...
Laugh - What I declined was to meet you! ..."
- Phil Innes (Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:50:46 GMT)
_
_
"Phil this is really getting old. It is Larry Tapper,
... who offered to meet you at the chessboard,
and you provided him with the most impolite of
declinations ..." - jamesrynd (7 Aug 2006
13:43:56 -0700)
_
_
"... I had only asked [Rynd-Dowd] if his 'all'
included a certain Gulko manuscript, which
shall we presume he had not read, ..." - Phil
Innes (Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:58:39 GMT)
_
_
"Phil - I never made any statements regarding
the Gulko manuscript or Keres-Botvinnik. I
professed no expertise on the subject, and
even Larry Tapper did not use the term 'all.'
_
PLEASE STOP CONFUSING ME WITH
LARRY TAPPER. ..." - jamesrynd (7 Aug 2006
14:40:00 -0700)
_
_
"... Since I seem to have accepted Dread
Dowd's challenge not for a few games but a
week of games, he himself backed off, and
has never made any contact - which is much
as I thought it would be. ..." - Phil Innes
(Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:15:16 GMT)
_
_
"... I never asked to play chess against [Phil
Innes], that was Larry Tapper. ..." - jamesrynd
(12 Aug 2006 09:46:27 -0700)
_
_
"... I actually responded to [Rynd-Dowd's]
initiative and accepted his challenge to play a
match, and extended it the whole week. ..."
- Phil Innes (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:08:42 GMT)
_
_
"... Larry Tapper wanted to play chess with [Phil
Innes] ..." - jamesrynd (14 Aug 2006
07:16:52 -0700)
_
_
"[addressing 'jamesrynd' as 'Larry' is] a little joke
we've neem kicking around for about a month now,
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:21:08 GMT)


  
Date: 27 Jul 2008 23:04:55
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Neil Brennen's claim to fame.
On Jul 23, 12:17=A0pm, <[email protected] >
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.85.103) wrote:

7 ...
7 Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for
7 a week at my expense since you seemed to be having a
7 hard time. I did take the precaution of copying a friend of
7 /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry Parr, so that they
7 could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
7 ...

_
"Hey Dr 'Rynd' ...
_
... your ego appeared hereabouts declaring that
it had read all relevant material in English, but
when asked if it has read the Gulko manuscript
- snipped it in the response. ROFL. ..." - Phil
Innes (Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:40:12 GMT)
_
_
"Phil, that was Larry Tapper, ..." - jamesrynd
(5 Aug 2006 22:48:36 -0700)
_
_
"... I extended Dr D an invitation ...
_
A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he
had read the Gulko MSS, but in his
response he eliminated even the
question, while maintaining his superiority
over others by ..." - Phil Innes (Sun,
06 Aug 2006 12:03:14 GMT)
_
_
"... Have you admitted yet that all this started
because you posted your 'question/challenge
- whatever you want to call it' to the wrong
person? ..." - jamesrynd (6 Aug 2006
05:26:48 -0700)
_
_
"... I get confused with all the anons, especially
when they answer each other's mail <wink > and
sound so much alike.
_
If indeed Larry Tapper is the person who knows
everything, surely he or Dr Rynd, could address
the subject. ..." - Phil Innes (Sun, 06 Aug 2006
12:49:31 GMT)
_
_
"... How can anything remain on topic with your
constant ad hom attacks, which aren't even
directed at the right person? ..." - jamesrynd
(6 Aug 2006 06:33:05 -0700)
_
_
"... jamesrynd ...
...
Laugh - What I declined was to meet you! ..."
- Phil Innes (Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:50:46 GMT)
_
_
"Phil this is really getting old. It is Larry Tapper,
... who offered to meet you at the chessboard,
and you provided him with the most impolite of
declinations ..." - jamesrynd (7 Aug 2006
13:43:56 -0700)
_
_
"... I had only asked [Rynd-Dowd] if his 'all'
included a certain Gulko manuscript, which
shall we presume he had not read, ..." - Phil
Innes (Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:58:39 GMT)
_
_
"Phil - I never made any statements regarding
the Gulko manuscript or Keres-Botvinnik. I
professed no expertise on the subject, and
even Larry Tapper did not use the term 'all.'
_
PLEASE STOP CONFUSING ME WITH
LARRY TAPPER. ..." - jamesrynd (7 Aug 2006
14:40:00 -0700)
_
_
"... Since I seem to have accepted Dread
Dowd's challenge not for a few games but a
week of games, he himself backed off, and
has never made any contact - which is much
as I thought it would be. ..." - Phil Innes
(Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:15:16 GMT)
_
_
"... I never asked to play chess against [Phil
Innes], that was Larry Tapper. ..." - jamesrynd
(12 Aug 2006 09:46:27 -0700)
_
_
"... I actually responded to [Rynd-Dowd's]
initiative and accepted his challenge to play a
match, and extended it the whole week. ..."
- Phil Innes (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:08:42 GMT)
_
_
"... Larry Tapper wanted to play chess with [Phil
Innes] ..." - jamesrynd (14 Aug 2006
07:16:52 -0700)
_
_
"[addressing 'jamesrynd' as 'Larry' is] a little joke
we've neem kicking around for about a month now,
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:21:08 GMT)


   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 23:23:17
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Neil Brennen's claim to fame.
Louis Blair wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:17 pm, <[email protected]>
> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.85.103) wrote:
>
> 7 ...
> 7 Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for
> 7 a week at my expense since you seemed to be having a
> 7 hard time. I did take the precaution of copying a friend of
> 7 /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry Parr, so that they
> 7 could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
> 7 ...
>
> _
> "Hey Dr 'Rynd' ...
> _
> ... your ego appeared hereabouts declaring that
> it had read all relevant material in English, but
> when asked if it has read the Gulko manuscript
> - snipped it in the response. ROFL. ..." - Phil
> Innes (Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:40:12 GMT)
> _
> _
> "Phil, that was Larry Tapper, ..." - jamesrynd
> (5 Aug 2006 22:48:36 -0700)
> _
> _
> "... I extended Dr D an invitation ...
> _
> A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he
> had read the Gulko MSS, but in his
> response he eliminated even the
> question, while maintaining his superiority
> over others by ..." - Phil Innes (Sun,
> 06 Aug 2006 12:03:14 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... Have you admitted yet that all this started
> because you posted your 'question/challenge
> - whatever you want to call it' to the wrong
> person? ..." - jamesrynd (6 Aug 2006
> 05:26:48 -0700)
> _
> _
> "... I get confused with all the anons, especially
> when they answer each other's mail <wink> and
> sound so much alike.
> _
> If indeed Larry Tapper is the person who knows
> everything, surely he or Dr Rynd, could address
> the subject. ..." - Phil Innes (Sun, 06 Aug 2006
> 12:49:31 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... How can anything remain on topic with your
> constant ad hom attacks, which aren't even
> directed at the right person? ..." - jamesrynd
> (6 Aug 2006 06:33:05 -0700)
> _
> _
> "... jamesrynd ...
> ...
> Laugh - What I declined was to meet you! ..."
> - Phil Innes (Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:50:46 GMT)
> _
> _
> "Phil this is really getting old. It is Larry Tapper,
> ... who offered to meet you at the chessboard,
> and you provided him with the most impolite of
> declinations ..." - jamesrynd (7 Aug 2006
> 13:43:56 -0700)
> _
> _
> "... I had only asked [Rynd-Dowd] if his 'all'
> included a certain Gulko manuscript, which
> shall we presume he had not read, ..." - Phil
> Innes (Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:58:39 GMT)
> _
> _
> "Phil - I never made any statements regarding
> the Gulko manuscript or Keres-Botvinnik. I
> professed no expertise on the subject, and
> even Larry Tapper did not use the term 'all.'
> _
> PLEASE STOP CONFUSING ME WITH
> LARRY TAPPER. ..." - jamesrynd (7 Aug 2006
> 14:40:00 -0700)
> _
> _
> "... Since I seem to have accepted Dread
> Dowd's challenge not for a few games but a
> week of games, he himself backed off, and
> has never made any contact - which is much
> as I thought it would be. ..." - Phil Innes
> (Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:15:16 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... I never asked to play chess against [Phil
> Innes], that was Larry Tapper. ..." - jamesrynd
> (12 Aug 2006 09:46:27 -0700)
> _
> _
> "... I actually responded to [Rynd-Dowd's]
> initiative and accepted his challenge to play a
> match, and extended it the whole week. ..."
> - Phil Innes (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:08:42 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... Larry Tapper wanted to play chess with [Phil
> Innes] ..." - jamesrynd (14 Aug 2006
> 07:16:52 -0700)
> _
> _
> "[addressing 'jamesrynd' as 'Larry' is] a little joke
> we've neem kicking around for about a month now,
> ..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:21:08 GMT)

Very confusing... :)
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


  
Date: 27 Jul 2008 07:16:22
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Vacation in the Insane Ass-ylum in Brattleboro!
On Jul 27, 8:25=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> FRENZY QUOTIENT
>
> <If there's anyone frenzied here, it's you, Philsy.> -- Neil Brennen
> to Phil Innes
>
> Neil Brennen introduces the issue of FQ or Frenzy Quotient.
>
> If by "frenzy" we have in mind someone whose
> cerebrum is warmed up, then Neil has a point. =A0Phil
> could be called frenzied, though happily so. =A0More
> anon on this point.
>
> Yet if we mean by "frenzy" someone whose inter-aural-appendage
> brainmeat is charbroiled and sizzlng, then Rynd/Dowd certainly
> qualifies by the man's own past description of his intellectual
> maladies.
> After all, what kind of a person would go to the trouble of forging my
> name
> on a university website?
>
> Whoa thar, Nelly! =A0There's steam coming from them thar vent holes.
>
> Still, at this given moment, both Rynd/Dowd and Phil
> Innes seem in dulcet concord. =A0Rynd/Dowd claims that he
> never wished to visit the Innes hospice for rgcp casualties,
> and Phil not only has kept the family silverware intact but
> has also avoided cooking some big meals for Rynd/Dowd.
>
> On the subject of invitations, I would certainly invite
> Rynd/Dowd over here to Malaysia if he had proper
> travel documents, which seems unlikely. =A0Too, there
> would be the issue of signing a bond to cover
> breakdowns he might suffer. =A0Would I be liable for
> soiled carpets and bedding, given the man's own
> admissions concerning his continence?
>
> Phil: =A0I am sure that you gave the above essential
> issues re Rynd/Dowd considerable thought. =A0I
> suppose that as Christians, we are obliged to take
> risks when assuaging the afflicted. =A0On the other
> hand, we have duties to our families; and Rynd/Dowd
> (SBD) even as he himself reckons his own being, is no bargain.
>
> Chto delat'?
>
> How to reconcile the spirit of charity with the
> responsibility of the hearth?
>
> Yours, Larry Parr

As I recall , the offer was made and cordially declined. To infer Phil
never extended the olive branch and attempted to show that a
disagreement on USCF policies and the "personality" driven issues of a
chess newsgroup had nothing to do with how real people can show
compassion and concern for their fellow man.

Currently I am playing a game of chess with a fellow from Myanmar/
Burma. He is very excited to have contact with the outside world and
the playing of this silly game is his way of reaching out to the rest
of humanity. It is a shame that so many on this news group tend to
fall back on the isolation of their egos and spend their time trying
to drag down and destroy others rather than simply and directly
address ISSUES not contrived in their mean little minds.

It is so much as the bucket of crabs description of events. Whenever
someone tries to escape the bitter bucket that is the status qou of
how chess is done in the US the other miserable crabs pull them back
into the bucket. The crabs of the USCF see Paul and Susan as potential
escapees and are intent on pulling them back into the bucket or
destroying them entirely. One thing they can't abide is that someone
might actually make it out of the bucket. If they did it would expose
them for the inept administrators and lazy politicians they actually
are.


   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 11:03:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Vacation in the Insane Ass-ylum in Brattleboro!

"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 27, 8:25 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> FRENZY QUOTIENT

> Phil: I am sure that you gave the above essential
> issues re Rynd/Dowd considerable thought. I
> suppose that as Christians, we are obliged to take
> risks when assuaging the afflicted. On the other
> hand, we have duties to our families; and Rynd/Dowd

Duabus sellis desere - though how exactly this is achieved unless you are
Neil Brennen, is, as Sam Sloan says, 'unclear'. Celtic or Johannine
Christians have, howsomever, other historical means to proceed - I was
reading about one yesterday, the unusually named Cedd who descended to Essex
from Lindisfarne on a mission for St. Finan to sort out the heathens. This
was a short-lived attempt to return the Saxons to nature [!] and a sort of
natural mysticism which was the blend of Roman and Celtic Christianity. It
is interesting that the author of the book, being a naturalist, bothers to
notice a remarkable thing - of great credit to his attention: he found some
altar stones in the ruin and was able to identify the dolerite as from Holy
Island [Lindisfarne], and a second, gneiss from Iona, and the third, lias
from Lastingham in the Yorkshire moors [Cedd's origin]. But I see I digress,
regress to the seventh century.

> (SBD) even as he himself reckons his own being, is no bargain.
>
> Chto delat'?
>
> How to reconcile the spirit of charity with the
> responsibility of the hearth?

Ah! now I can pun with

Cineri gloria sera est - Martial said, 'glory paid to ashes comes too late.'
Though how Martial can possibly have known our Steven is unclear.

> Yours, Larry Parr

As I recall , the offer was made and cordially declined. To infer Phil
never extended the olive branch and attempted to show that a
disagreement on USCF policies and the "personality" driven issues of a
chess newsgroup had nothing to do with how real people can show
compassion and concern for their fellow man.

Currently I am playing a game of chess with a fellow from Myanmar/
Burma. He is very excited to have contact with the outside world and
the playing of this silly game is his way of reaching out to the rest
of humanity.

**Yes, some time ago around Christmas I was playing cc with a bloke from
Iran - a good player too. As usual our conversations were stilted, so
abandoning English I tried French and German, but at end we found a few
words together in Latin. Very few words, but as you note above, the play is
the thing! Interestingly, there is no evidence at all in the Work that
Shakespeare played the game, tho there are chessic references, they are as
usual with Shakepeare [the lawyer, the sailor,], those of an outsider and of
the type of external knowledge you could glean in an afternoon [says Rowse].
But to return to the subject of Myanamar, I also met a bloke last Summer who
happened to be fishing, and he was a political exile - had been an academic,
spent 4 years hiding in the jungle he said, and [I encouraged him] he then
took his rod and asking me to pretend it was a spear, showed me how to spear
a monkey - then we discussed how to cook it. An odd thing was that after he
now completes his advanced degree, he intended to return there. Nothing
quite as dark, he said to my cue, as Koestler's Dakness at noon, tho I found
that hard to believe.

It is a shame that so many on this news group tend to
fall back on the isolation of their egos and spend their time trying
to drag down and destroy others rather than simply and directly
address ISSUES not contrived in their mean little minds.

**Thats a philosophy comes direct from the game, no? Especially in
correspondance, one doesn't know anything necessarily about who the other
player is, not gender, nationality, religion, age... but sometimes an
opinion or a question about an issue comes up - the real achievement in even
brief exchanges is that there is an eqanimity about them - that it is human
beings who address each other, and there are no sub-categories or
under-people.

It is so much as the bucket of crabs description of events. Whenever
someone tries to escape the bitter bucket that is the status qou of
how chess is done in the US the other miserable crabs pull them back
into the bucket. The crabs of the USCF see Paul and Susan as potential
escapees and are intent on pulling them back into the bucket or
destroying them entirely. One thing they can't abide is that someone
might actually make it out of the bucket. If they did it would expose
them for the inept administrators and lazy politicians they actually
are.

**I might add one word in defence of USCF - after all these years of
observing and interacting with them, I conclude that their world is exactly
bucket-size. They don't believe there is anything else out there, and if you
ventured forth you probably would fall off the edge off the kitchen-table or
something.

**The difference with Paul, Susan and others, is that they get out more!
They know there is more in chess than can possibly be got in that bucket and
therefore don't behave as if it is their inevitable resting place. What is
distinctly strange is that others resent this behavior since they are
severely protective of their worldbucket, almost as if they didn't want it
to be known about - and therefore they can snooze away the rest of their
time, and occasionally make crabby comments about those outside the known
bucketworld.

**If only USCF would be so honest as to change its mission statement and not
pretend to govern those beyond the bucket, which it scarcely knows anything
about.

**Or if USCF could put its own bucket in order! Why, when Fide announced the
world mind games in January, was nothing done until 10th of June? That is,
someone was appointed to deal with it at that date. I think it then took a
month to communicate stuff. Most top players commit their calendars very far
in advance of that, as John Donaldson found out. And if USCF actually
represents all the players in the USA, which is to say America's team - then
did it act like it wanted to do so? Or that the onerous responsibility of it
all was just too much! If it doesn't want to do it, it should give it up
without a grudge and let those who can do, do.

Phil Innes




  
Date: 27 Jul 2008 06:25:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vacation in the Insane Ass-ylum in Brattleboro!

FRENZY QUOTIENT

<If there's anyone frenzied here, it's you, Philsy. > -- Neil Brennen
to Phil Innes

Neil Brennen introduces the issue of FQ or Frenzy Quotient.

If by "frenzy" we have in mind someone whose
cerebrum is warmed up, then Neil has a point. Phil
could be called frenzied, though happily so. More
anon on this point.

Yet if we mean by "frenzy" someone whose inter-aural-appendage
brainmeat is charbroiled and sizzlng, then Rynd/Dowd certainly
qualifies by the man's own past description of his intellectual
maladies.
After all, what kind of a person would go to the trouble of forging my
name
on a university website?

Whoa thar, Nelly! There's steam coming from them thar vent holes.

Still, at this given moment, both Rynd/Dowd and Phil
Innes seem in dulcet concord. Rynd/Dowd claims that he
never wished to visit the Innes hospice for rgcp casualties,
and Phil not only has kept the family silverware intact but
has also avoided cooking some big meals for Rynd/Dowd.

On the subject of invitations, I would certainly invite
Rynd/Dowd over here to Malaysia if he had proper
travel documents, which seems unlikely. Too, there
would be the issue of signing a bond to cover
breakdowns he might suffer. Would I be liable for
soiled carpets and bedding, given the man's own
admissions concerning his continence?

Phil: I am sure that you gave the above essential
issues re Rynd/Dowd considerable thought. I
suppose that as Christians, we are obliged to take
risks when assuaging the afflicted. On the other
hand, we have duties to our families; and Rynd/Dowd
(SBD) even as he himself reckons his own being, is no bargain.

Chto delat'?

How to reconcile the spirit of charity with the
responsibility of the hearth?

Yours, Larry Parr



  
Date: 26 Jul 2008 12:30:44
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Vacation in the Insane Ass-ylum in Brattleboro!
On Jul 24, 10:11 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
>
> > On Jul 24, 7:35 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week at my
> >> > expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the
> >> > precaution
> >> > of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry Parr,
> >> > so
> >> > that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
>
> >> Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this lie
> >> for you?
>
> > But Dr. Steve, how could you pass up the rare opportunity of spending
> > a week with the Nearly an IM 2450?
>
> Because the gent seemed to need a vacation at the time of some personal
> stress - but that is [his] private business. He is free to aver it or not,
> and I do not even need the support of 2 witnesses here - since I and they
> know what's what, and I don't care forBrennen's'inquiry' since he doesn't
> care about anything.

We can see the evidence of your not caring in the cascade of words
below.

> > Imagine all the knowledge you could
> > have gained! You could go over the deathless Innes-Mitchell match
> > games with 'the Master', and learn how to use a chess engine in your
> > ongoing correspondence games.
>
> And this is the interesting aspect of pathological lairs - without evidence,
> scepticism turns into denial, into nihilism - which is quite as I wrote
> about a certain coterie of posters here just a few hours ago.
>
> That the same crowd which prosecutes the FSS issue on the same basis - which
> to emphasise, is not a form inquiry, but a deliberated destruction of what
> is real - this has been plain from the start of their activities.
>
> > And I bet P Innes would have you talking
> > Andean by the end of the week.
>
> I doubt anyone could learn much of the 5 native groupings of Andean speech
> in a week - but again, the mockery is to /deny/ that any exist. The writerBrennenis so obtuse that he doesn't know or care whether they exist or not,
> anymore than he cares for the extancy of Anglo Saxon in current speech.
>
> Previously I countered another group containingBrennenusing anal language
> in an humanities newsgroup to persecute awoman, making deliberate
> distortions of her name and the usual contentless ad-argumentum
> contradictions of her writing.
>
> Plus references to those who resented such means of address. Repressed
> homosexual panic, I asked? Of course not,Brennensaid, referring to other
> men's bottoms means 'nothing'!~ ;))

You've never understood the term "jackass" has nothing to do with any
part of the male anatomy. You might buy a dictionary, Philsy.

> IfBrennenis intent on committing other than more hate-speech here, let him
> come up with some basis of my use of chess engine use in correspondance
> chess. But he won't do that, since as I just wrote about Fischer, the
> complex is dissassociated from those aspects of intelligence which recognise
> the need to substantiate one's ideas with facts or experience. This
> unfortunate is unable to achieve this, or even recognise its necessity -
> since it doesn't happen inside him, he can't externalise what doesn't exist.
>
> Meanwhile such people are not 'mentally ill', but something not nothing
> possesses them, and more than somewhat inhibits their ability to act with
> any decency or contribution in a society of other human beings.
>
> Phil Innes



  
Date: 26 Jul 2008 12:09:14
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Vacation in the Insane Ass-ylum in Brattleboro!
On Jul 26, 1:46 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
>
> > On Jul 24, 7:53 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> But Dr. Steve, how could you pass up the rare opportunity of spending
> >> a week with the Nearly an IM 2450?
>
> > Gives new meaning to a week in hell.
>
> > It's sort of odd how Parr and Innes keep referring to this "invite,"
> > which I found rather creepy, but somehow my refusal to spend time with
> > the almost an IM has just frosted them to no end.
>
> Not at all Steven. I am glad you didn't come. I never anticipated the
> slightest personal pleasure from your visit. That was hardly the point.
>
> [[But you will be careful about crying wolf again, no?]]

I read Dr. Dowd's post as finding P Innes and Parr's discussion of the
alleged "invite" creepy, not the alleged "invite" itself. So I don't
see any wolf-crying.

> If you /seriously/ contest the issue, rather than mouthing off about it on
> usenet, I suppose we could try a small wager, or a large one? And Verizon
> could substantiate their server record.

Computer records don't mean anything, according to the posts of P
Innes. So this offer to accept Verizon's records as proof of
something, but reject the Mottershead report, is inconsistent.

As before, please let me know [how
> much] and it will have to be much.
>
> But how strange that you decided to contest your correspondance by means of
> saying that you never // e-mailed // it, rather than you didn't write it,
> which you did here in public. Quite possibly inadvertently sending the same
> message to the newsgroup and to me personally. How logically nutz is it to
> assert that because you didn't email, [which it appears you have no idea if
> you did] then you never said it, and our conversation never took place.

I'm sure many people wish their conversations with P Innes never took
place.

> Of course, Taylor cant recall and as a professional computer expert can't
> actually find the material on his own computer <right!>- and you cant bother
> to look anything up.
>
> Neil Brennen only writes to devide ....

Sorry, I was never good at devision. Whatever that is.

other people and excite hatred, and he
> has you on his string! Look at you sucking up! Look at your inane response
> to a public distorter and obsessionist. pfft!
>
> AGATHA CHRISTIE MOMENT
>
> After all this happened, I wonder if you can 'find' or remember the note
> /you/ sent me saying that was all water under the bridge, or how in fact you
> would explain that I then discussed with you a review of Dr. Alberts work on
> MAMS for Chessville, which you and Andy Walker both subsequently reviewed?
>
> > It's used by them as
> > some sort of proof of my instability... funny, I would have thought
> > any sane person would spend as little time as possible with Innes....
>
> So you say - though as above, you subsequently contacted me //again//, and
> accepted a review commission - which I suppose is to accuse yourself of
> something no sane person would do. Given what you say and your demonstrated
> subsequent action - then one of them is untrue, no?
>
> Which of us seems likely to be //lying// do you think? Not by these, your
> protestations, but by our actions?
>
> You may think hate-speech [yours] 'funny' but many people abhor it. Do you
> get out much?
>
> And here you are, found out again, not by what you say, but how you act. A
> mean, lying 'popularist' showing off to the likes of Neil Brennen's
> scatology.
>
> Golly gosh, what a frenzied and desperate band of brothers we got here!
>
> Phil Innes

If there's anyone frenzied here, it's you, Philsy.


  
Date: 25 Jul 2008 08:58:42
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vacation in the Insane Ass-ylum in Brattleboro!
A WEEK IN HELL

>Gives new meaning to a week in hell. It's sort of odd how Parr and Innes keep referring to this "invite," which I found rather creepy, but somehow my refusal to spend time with the almost an IM has just frosted them to no end. It's used by them as some sort of proof of my instability... funny, I would have thought any sane person would spend as little time aspossible with Innes....> -- SBD

We rarely encounter such amity on this forum.

Phil Innes extended an invitation to help out Rynd/Dowd,
who was at that time suffering inside his head (if we
could not hear the clangour inside the fella's
noggin', he apparently could -- putting 76 Trombones
to shame), and the man now tells us that he hated the
thought of spending a week with Mr. Innes.

Innes' reaction? I have a hunch that he had
genuinely hoped to help Rynd/Dowd and was
sad that the man -- in his well-known severality
of personae -- did not show up. To be sure, there
was probably some worry that the persona-upon-arrival,
likely on its best behavior, might transmogrify during the
visit but Phil was prepared to take that risk.

Today, though, all seems merry. Rynd/Dowd
claims that he never wished to visit, and by now
Phil seems to be delighted that he still has his
crockery and silverware intact.

Prospective visitor and prospective host appear
equally pleased. It's a rare day here that ends
in satisfaction for all concerned.

Yours, Larry Parr



SBD wrote:
> On Jul 24, 7:53 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > But Dr. Steve, how could you pass up the rare opportunity of spending
> > a week with the Nearly an IM 2450?
>
> Gives new meaning to a week in hell.
>
> It's sort of odd how Parr and Innes keep referring to this "invite,"
> which I found rather creepy, but somehow my refusal to spend time with
> the almost an IM has just frosted them to no end. It's used by them as
> some sort of proof of my instability... funny, I would have thought
> any sane person would spend as little time as possible with Innes....


  
Date: 25 Jul 2008 05:54:35
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Vacation in the Insane Ass-ylum in Brattleboro!
On Jul 24, 7:53 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> But Dr. Steve, how could you pass up the rare opportunity of spending
> a week with the Nearly an IM 2450?

Gives new meaning to a week in hell.

It's sort of odd how Parr and Innes keep referring to this "invite,"
which I found rather creepy, but somehow my refusal to spend time with
the almost an IM has just frosted them to no end. It's used by them as
some sort of proof of my instability... funny, I would have thought
any sane person would spend as little time as possible with Innes....


   
Date: 26 Jul 2008 14:46:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Vacation in the Insane Ass-ylum in Brattleboro!

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jul 24, 7:53 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> But Dr. Steve, how could you pass up the rare opportunity of spending
>> a week with the Nearly an IM 2450?
>
> Gives new meaning to a week in hell.
>
> It's sort of odd how Parr and Innes keep referring to this "invite,"
> which I found rather creepy, but somehow my refusal to spend time with
> the almost an IM has just frosted them to no end.


Not at all Steven. I am glad you didn't come. I never anticipated the
slightest personal pleasure from your visit. That was hardly the point.

[[But you will be careful about crying wolf again, no?]]

If you /seriously/ contest the issue, rather than mouthing off about it on
usenet, I suppose we could try a small wager, or a large one? And Verizon
could substantiate their server record. As before, please let me know [how
much] and it will have to be much.

But how strange that you decided to contest your correspondance by means of
saying that you never // e-mailed // it, rather than you didn't write it,
which you did here in public. Quite possibly inadvertently sending the same
message to the newsgroup and to me personally. How logically nutz is it to
assert that because you didn't email, [which it appears you have no idea if
you did] then you never said it, and our conversation never took place.

Of course, Taylor cant recall and as a professional computer expert can't
actually find the material on his own computer <right! >- and you cant bother
to look anything up.

Neil Brennen only writes to devide other people and excite hatred, and he
has you on his string! Look at you sucking up! Look at your inane response
to a public distorter and obsessionist. pfft!

AGATHA CHRISTIE MOMENT

After all this happened, I wonder if you can 'find' or remember the note
/you/ sent me saying that was all water under the bridge, or how in fact you
would explain that I then discussed with you a review of Dr. Alberts work on
MAMS for Chessville, which you and Andy Walker both subsequently reviewed?

> It's used by them as
> some sort of proof of my instability... funny, I would have thought
> any sane person would spend as little time as possible with Innes....

So you say - though as above, you subsequently contacted me //again//, and
accepted a review commission - which I suppose is to accuse yourself of
something no sane person would do. Given what you say and your demonstrated
subsequent action - then one of them is untrue, no?

Which of us seems likely to be //lying// do you think? Not by these, your
protestations, but by our actions?

You may think hate-speech [yours] 'funny' but many people abhor it. Do you
get out much?

And here you are, found out again, not by what you say, but how you act. A
mean, lying 'popularist' showing off to the likes of Neil Brennen's
scatology.

Golly gosh, what a frenzied and desperate band of brothers we got here!

Phil Innes




  
Date: 25 Jul 2008 05:48:02
From: SBD
Subject: Re: The Innes-Tapper Dead Horse
On Jul 25, 1:40 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> My recollection is that Rynd/Dowd was suffering
> at the time and going through one of his breakdowns.
> Phil kinda asked him out to Vermont.

Sigh... have you stopped beating your wife, Larry?


  
Date: 25 Jul 2008 05:15:39
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Innes' rating, if any
On Jul 24, 7:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:01:40 -0700 (PDT), SBD <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >> [& How would these patzers know anything about that, anyway? Neither of them
> > > >> even achieved the minimum rating I held in USA which was 2035]
> > > >Is this the same Kennedy who was 2270? if so, your math kind of sucks.
>
> > > Not only that, but Greg Kennedy evidently has maintained that rating
> > > through a number of recent events.
>
> > What was the last chess event P Innes the Nearly an IM 2450 played in?
> > Aside from the last hundred 'friendly' games against Rob, of course.
>
> Seehttp://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296. He last
> played in the Stratton Mountain Open in 1995.

Thank you, John. Nothing "nearly an IM" like in that tournament
performance, I see.


  
Date: 25 Jul 2008 05:12:51
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Innes-Tapper Dead Horse
On Jul 24, 1:49 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Jul 24, 10:18 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > >> On Jul 24, 9:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > >> > > On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > >> Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week at
> > >> > >> my
> > >> > >> expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the
> > >> > >> precaution
> > >> > >> of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry
> > >> > >> Parr, so
> > >> > >> that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
>
> > >> > > Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this
> > >> > > lie
> > >> > > for you?
>
> > >> > I did say there were 2 witnesses! Both write here. If you have another
> > >> > story
> > >> > to tell, tell it! Don't call people liars when it is so easy to
> > >> > independently disprove it, by your friends and mine - otherwise you are
> > >> > in
> > >> > danger of seeming to have nothing to say when I am in danger of winning
> > >> > completely by mention of the witnesses: Taylor Kingston and Larry Parr.
>
> > >> > Phil Innes
>
> > >> Offhand I don't recall "witnessing" any invitation from Innes to Dr.
> > >> Dowd, though that does not mean one wasn't issued. The main Innes
> > >> invitation I do recall was to Larry Tapper.
>
> > > Oh, so THAT'S the dead horse Innes has resumed beating. Cue to His I-
> > > ness to threaten us with publication of the emails for the next week
> > > or so.
>
> > Kingston Taylor does not recall, meaning what?
>
> Exactly that, Phil. I don't remember you issuing an invitation to
> Dowd. Maybe you did. I don't care either way. I do remember you
> inviting Tapper.
>
> > He doesn't keep his emails?
>
> No, I don't keep most of my e-mails.
>
> > Or hasn't bopthered to look at them?
>
> This is not even important enough for me to be writing this, let
> alone scouring through months- or years-old e-mails.

Yes, it's low in the hierarchy of Innes drivel. Still waiting on the
Innes 'threat' to post the emails.


  
Date: 24 Jul 2008 23:40:10
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Innes-Tapper Dead Horse
PHIL'S INVITATIONS TO VERMONT

<Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my
house for a week at my expense since you seemed
to be having a hard time. I did take the precaution
of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and
also Larry Parr, so that they could see the actual offer.
My reward from you was abuse. > -- Phil Innes to SBD

My recollection is that Rynd/Dowd was suffering
at the time and going through one of his breakdowns.
Phil kinda asked him out to Vermont.

As for Larry Tapper, Phil did not so much as
issue an invitation as respond to hints from
the latter that he wished to escape from North
Carolina and Deliverance country.

Phil was going to feed Mr. Tapper pancakes
lathered in maple syrup. The deal, if memory
tickles, was that the refugee from the hicks
and ricks of the Carolinas could spend a few days
recovering at the Innes homestead but would have
to camp in the front yard if he wished to stay longer.
Still, Phil put no time limit on the pancakes and
Vermont maple syrup.

Too, Phil placed no limits on the amount of food
that Rynd/Dowd could ingest from the Innes family larder.

Overall, Rynd/Dowd appeared more coy than the
straightforward Rapper-Tapper.

Yours, Larry Parr




Chess One wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Jul 24, 10:18 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Jul 24, 9:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> > > On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week at
> >> > >> my
> >> > >> expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the
> >> > >> precaution
> >> > >> of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry
> >> > >> Parr, so
> >> > >> that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
> >>
> >> > > Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this
> >> > > lie
> >> > > for you?
> >>
> >> > I did say there were 2 witnesses! Both write here. If you have another
> >> > story
> >> > to tell, tell it! Don't call people liars when it is so easy to
> >> > independently disprove it, by your friends and mine - otherwise you are
> >> > in
> >> > danger of seeming to have nothing to say when I am in danger of winning
> >> > completely by mention of the witnesses: Taylor Kingston and Larry Parr.
> >>
> >> > Phil Innes
> >>
> >> Offhand I don't recall "witnessing" any invitation from Innes to Dr.
> >> Dowd, though that does not mean one wasn't issued. The main Innes
> >> invitation I do recall was to Larry Tapper.
> >
> > Oh, so THAT'S the dead horse Innes has resumed beating. Cue to His I-
> > ness to threaten us with publication of the emails for the next week
> > or so.
>
> Brennan means he doesn't want me to say what actually transpired, since this
> would ruin his scheme! Which is as before, to negate facts of real people's
> lives in preference to his FATuous versions of them.
>
> Kingston Taylor does not recall, meaning what? He doesn't keep his emails?
> Or hasn't bopthered to look at them? He natually doesn't make that clear,
> since if he did then maybe Our Neil would get him for it? Certainly Neil
> Brennen is terrified that I may have acted honorably in inviting someone
> here, since that would destroy the basis of his hate-speech. And this would
> cause him pain, since he would have to deal with his own conflicted
> complexes.
>
> Lary Parr actually wrote here in public about the rejected offer. I doubt
> anyone will be able to 'find or recall' that either.
>
> Maybe Kinston Taylor is too old to remember or to think of looking? Who
> knows? And when this came up before Kingston Taylor [lol] said that I
>
> may have /made up/
>
> the emails, so he didn't know if they were true from that basis.
>
> He said the same about his own e-mail campaign against Parr and Evans - that
> I should send them to him, so he could say if he wrote them or not. :))
>
> He denied that he circulated those messages to Brennen and others, but not
> denied them to the extent that he challenged my statement that server
> records would substantiate the issue.
>
> That is his personal interest here.
>
> ---
>
> Brennen is as dull in this instance as to pre-empt the very proof of what
> happened by already being cynical of it. As I said before, there is not the
> slightest interest from him in objective truth or any factual matter, since
> this does not go on in him, he cannot recognise it happens in the world as
> basis for opinion.
>
> This is a dissassociated complex which is abysmal, not any necessary
> psychosis, but certainly neurotic. As if the person was possessed by
> suppositions to the degree that they propose fantasies of the objective
> world around them to prevent how the world is from invading their idea of
> controlling it.
>
> What matters his opinion of 'real life' to me? He denies my life. That is
> hate speech and he utters it without any evidential material - and his
> friends do not care to notice a bit of nazism, or even a lot.
>
> All Brennen needs are the brown armbands - then he can offiially negate real
> people's lives, as he has done virtually for 5 years.
>
> And all this is okay with his co-horts as Vaguer Kingston effects; they
> cannot /recall/ any hate, and uncertainly have not looked very hard, if at
> all, for any e-mail, and would not even respect server records of
> transactions, since they personally like a bit of shadenfreude, since they
> get off on it.
>
> And Kingston has the gall to think that Hitler did it all on his own! That
> German people didn't consent with it all the way.
>
> What else do you need to start killing criples? First you invent the idea
> that their lives are no use. Then you do it.
>
> Then, encouraged by that, you get after a main scape-goat, like Jews, and
> you invent a legend for them which denies their lives, and deny they are of
> some use, to which no one can 'recall' any antithesis. Then you kill them
> too.
>
> It is a mechanism you see, a systemic deployment of persons possessed, who
> lack the bravery to face themselves, so project and kill the 'inhuman
> aliens."
>
> Phil Innes


  
Date: 24 Jul 2008 11:49:39
From:
Subject: Re: The Innes-Tapper Dead Horse
On Jul 24, 2:39=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 10:18 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Jul 24, 9:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:[email protected]=
...
>
> >> > > On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > >> Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week =
at
> >> > >> my
> >> > >> expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the
> >> > >> precaution
> >> > >> of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry
> >> > >> Parr, so
> >> > >> that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abus=
e.
>
> >> > > Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this
> >> > > lie
> >> > > for you?
>
> >> > I did say there were 2 witnesses! Both write here. If you have anoth=
er
> >> > story
> >> > to tell, tell it! Don't call people liars when it is so easy to
> >> > independently disprove it, by your friends and mine - otherwise you =
are
> >> > in
> >> > danger of seeming to have nothing to say when I am in danger of winn=
ing
> >> > completely by mention of the witnesses: Taylor Kingston and Larry Pa=
rr.
>
> >> > Phil Innes
>
> >> =A0 Offhand I don't recall "witnessing" any invitation from Innes to D=
r.
> >> Dowd, though that does not mean one wasn't issued. The main Innes
> >> invitation I do recall was to Larry Tapper.
>
> > Oh, so THAT'S the dead horse Innes has resumed beating. Cue to His I-
> > ness to threaten us with publication of the emails for the next week
> > or so.
>
> Kingston Taylor does not recall, meaning what?

Exactly that, Phil. I don't remember you issuing an invitation to
Dowd. Maybe you did. I don't care either way. I do remember you
inviting Tapper.

> He doesn't keep his emails?

No, I don't keep most of my e-mails.

> Or hasn't bopthered to look at them?

This is not even important enough for me to be writing this, let
alone scouring through months- or years-old e-mails.



   
Date: 25 Jul 2008 15:47:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Innes-Tapper Dead Horse

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
On Jul 24, 2:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 10:18 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Jul 24, 9:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > > On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > >> Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week
> >> > >> at
> >> > >> my
> >> > >> expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the
> >> > >> precaution
> >> > >> of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry
> >> > >> Parr, so
> >> > >> that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was
> >> > >> abuse.
>
> >> > > Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this
> >> > > lie
> >> > > for you?
>
> >> > I did say there were 2 witnesses! Both write here. If you have
> >> > another
> >> > story
> >> > to tell, tell it! Don't call people liars when it is so easy to
> >> > independently disprove it, by your friends and mine - otherwise you
> >> > are
> >> > in
> >> > danger of seeming to have nothing to say when I am in danger of
> >> > winning
> >> > completely by mention of the witnesses: Taylor Kingston and Larry
> >> > Parr.
>
> >> > Phil Innes
>
> >> Offhand I don't recall "witnessing" any invitation from Innes to Dr.
> >> Dowd, though that does not mean one wasn't issued. The main Innes
> >> invitation I do recall was to Larry Tapper.
>
> > Oh, so THAT'S the dead horse Innes has resumed beating. Cue to His I-
> > ness to threaten us with publication of the emails for the next week
> > or so.
>
> Kingston Taylor does not recall, meaning what?

Exactly that, Phil. I don't remember you issuing an invitation to
Dowd.

**Really? I seem to remember on a previous occasion you wondering if it was
really Dowd wgho wrote what he did... but since this is only your memory,
not any e-mail report, not a fact as such, then I guess your comment is
true about you memory of it.

Maybe you did. I don't care either way. I do remember you
inviting Tapper.

**Thank you. Therefore your memory worked to that extent.

> He doesn't keep his emails?

No, I don't keep most of my e-mails.

> Or hasn't bopthered to look at them?

This is not even important enough for me to be writing this, let
alone scouring through months- or years-old e-mails.

**But important enough for others to deny foir whatever reasons they may
have, or that they always deny. I see you do acknowledge I offered him.

PI




   
Date: 24 Jul 2008 23:17:55
From: TheDoc
Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice

THANK YOU .

I wanted to thank publicly the owners\operators of this site fo
deleting certain unauthorized, and misleading photo's that had bee
posted to this site. It is much appreciated and unusual in thi
internet age of blush and bluster. kudo's and thank


--
TheDoc


  
Date: 24 Jul 2008 08:30:03
From: The Historian
Subject: The Innes-Tapper Dead Horse
On Jul 24, 10:18 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week at my
> > >> expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the
> > >> precaution
> > >> of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry Parr, so
> > >> that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
>
> > > Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this lie
> > > for you?
>
> > I did say there were 2 witnesses! Both write here. If you have another story
> > to tell, tell it! Don't call people liars when it is so easy to
> > independently disprove it, by your friends and mine - otherwise you are in
> > danger of seeming to have nothing to say when I am in danger of winning
> > completely by mention of the witnesses: Taylor Kingston and Larry Parr.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Offhand I don't recall "witnessing" any invitation from Innes to Dr.
> Dowd, though that does not mean one wasn't issued. The main Innes
> invitation I do recall was to Larry Tapper.

Oh, so THAT'S the dead horse Innes has resumed beating. Cue to His I-
ness to threaten us with publication of the emails for the next week
or so.



   
Date: 24 Jul 2008 14:39:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Innes-Tapper Dead Horse

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 24, 10:18 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 9:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > > On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week at
>> > >> my
>> > >> expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the
>> > >> precaution
>> > >> of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry
>> > >> Parr, so
>> > >> that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
>>
>> > > Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this
>> > > lie
>> > > for you?
>>
>> > I did say there were 2 witnesses! Both write here. If you have another
>> > story
>> > to tell, tell it! Don't call people liars when it is so easy to
>> > independently disprove it, by your friends and mine - otherwise you are
>> > in
>> > danger of seeming to have nothing to say when I am in danger of winning
>> > completely by mention of the witnesses: Taylor Kingston and Larry Parr.
>>
>> > Phil Innes
>>
>> Offhand I don't recall "witnessing" any invitation from Innes to Dr.
>> Dowd, though that does not mean one wasn't issued. The main Innes
>> invitation I do recall was to Larry Tapper.
>
> Oh, so THAT'S the dead horse Innes has resumed beating. Cue to His I-
> ness to threaten us with publication of the emails for the next week
> or so.

Brennan means he doesn't want me to say what actually transpired, since this
would ruin his scheme! Which is as before, to negate facts of real people's
lives in preference to his FATuous versions of them.

Kingston Taylor does not recall, meaning what? He doesn't keep his emails?
Or hasn't bopthered to look at them? He natually doesn't make that clear,
since if he did then maybe Our Neil would get him for it? Certainly Neil
Brennen is terrified that I may have acted honorably in inviting someone
here, since that would destroy the basis of his hate-speech. And this would
cause him pain, since he would have to deal with his own conflicted
complexes.

Lary Parr actually wrote here in public about the rejected offer. I doubt
anyone will be able to 'find or recall' that either.

Maybe Kinston Taylor is too old to remember or to think of looking? Who
knows? And when this came up before Kingston Taylor [lol] said that I

may have /made up/

the emails, so he didn't know if they were true from that basis.

He said the same about his own e-mail campaign against Parr and Evans - that
I should send them to him, so he could say if he wrote them or not. :))

He denied that he circulated those messages to Brennen and others, but not
denied them to the extent that he challenged my statement that server
records would substantiate the issue.

That is his personal interest here.

---

Brennen is as dull in this instance as to pre-empt the very proof of what
happened by already being cynical of it. As I said before, there is not the
slightest interest from him in objective truth or any factual matter, since
this does not go on in him, he cannot recognise it happens in the world as
basis for opinion.

This is a dissassociated complex which is abysmal, not any necessary
psychosis, but certainly neurotic. As if the person was possessed by
suppositions to the degree that they propose fantasies of the objective
world around them to prevent how the world is from invading their idea of
controlling it.

What matters his opinion of 'real life' to me? He denies my life. That is
hate speech and he utters it without any evidential material - and his
friends do not care to notice a bit of nazism, or even a lot.

All Brennen needs are the brown armbands - then he can offiially negate real
people's lives, as he has done virtually for 5 years.

And all this is okay with his co-horts as Vaguer Kingston effects; they
cannot /recall/ any hate, and uncertainly have not looked very hard, if at
all, for any e-mail, and would not even respect server records of
transactions, since they personally like a bit of shadenfreude, since they
get off on it.

And Kingston has the gall to think that Hitler did it all on his own! That
German people didn't consent with it all the way.

What else do you need to start killing criples? First you invent the idea
that their lives are no use. Then you do it.

Then, encouraged by that, you get after a main scape-goat, like Jews, and
you invent a legend for them which denies their lives, and deny they are of
some use, to which no one can 'recall' any antithesis. Then you kill them
too.

It is a mechanism you see, a systemic deployment of persons possessed, who
lack the bravery to face themselves, so project and kill the 'inhuman
aliens."

Phil Innes





  
Date: 24 Jul 2008 08:18:07
From:
Subject: Re: Neil Brennen's claim to fame.
On Jul 24, 9:34=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week at my
> >> expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the
> >> precaution
> >> of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry Parr, =
so
> >> that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
>
> > Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this lie
> > for you?
>
> I did say there were 2 witnesses! Both write here. If you have another st=
ory
> to tell, tell it! Don't call people liars when it is so easy to
> independently disprove it, by your friends and mine - otherwise you are i=
n
> danger of seeming to have nothing to say when I am in danger of winning
> completely by mention of the witnesses: Taylor Kingston and Larry Parr.
>
> Phil Innes

Offhand I don't recall "witnessing" any invitation from Innes to Dr.
Dowd, though that does not mean one wasn't issued. The main Innes
invitation I do recall was to Larry Tapper.


  
Date: 24 Jul 2008 07:23:56
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Innes' rating, if any
On Jul 24, 7:34=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:01:40 -0700 (PDT), SBD <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >> [& How would these patzers know anything about that, anyway? Neith=
er of them
> > > >> even achieved the minimum rating I held in USA which was 2035]
> > > >Is this the same Kennedy who was 2270? if so, your math kind of suck=
s.
>
> > > Not only that, but Greg Kennedy evidently has maintained that rating
> > > through a number of recent events.
>
> > What was the last chess event P Innes the Nearly an IM 2450 played in?
> > Aside from the last hundred 'friendly' games against Rob, of course.
>
> Seehttp://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296. He last
> played in the Stratton Mountain Open in 1995.

I have played both the 'bot and Phil.Neither gain any rating points by
beating me. If you care to join chessworld for free you can then
review any and all of the games played by any member and judge for
yourself their skill. Phil and Bot but out class me a great deal, but
I still enjoy the games. If anyone else cared to join I would play
against them as well. My ego isn't attached to my chess scores so you
won't hear me throwing any accusations around. If you won't play...
who care what you say?


  
Date: 24 Jul 2008 05:53:20
From: The Historian
Subject: Vacation in the Insane Ass-ylum in Brattleboro!
On Jul 24, 7:35 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week at my
> > expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the precaution
> > of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry Parr, so
> > that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
>
> Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this lie
> for you?

But Dr. Steve, how could you pass up the rare opportunity of spending
a week with the Nearly an IM 2450? Imagine all the knowledge you could
have gained! You could go over the deathless Innes-Mitchell match
games with 'the Master', and learn how to use a chess engine in your
ongoing correspondence games. And I bet P Innes would have you talking
Andean by the end of the week.



   
Date: 24 Jul 2008 11:11:40
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Vacation in the Insane Ass-ylum in Brattleboro!

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jul 24, 7:35 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week at my
>> > expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the
>> > precaution
>> > of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry Parr,
>> > so
>> > that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
>>
>> Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this lie
>> for you?
>
> But Dr. Steve, how could you pass up the rare opportunity of spending
> a week with the Nearly an IM 2450?

Because the gent seemed to need a vacation at the time of some personal
stress - but that is [his] private business. He is free to aver it or not,
and I do not even need the support of 2 witnesses here - since I and they
know what's what, and I don't care for Brennen's 'inquiry' since he doesn't
care about anything.

> Imagine all the knowledge you could
> have gained! You could go over the deathless Innes-Mitchell match
> games with 'the Master', and learn how to use a chess engine in your
> ongoing correspondence games.

And this is the interesting aspect of pathological lairs - without evidence,
scepticism turns into denial, into nihilism - which is quite as I wrote
about a certain coterie of posters here just a few hours ago.

That the same crowd which prosecutes the FSS issue on the same basis - which
to emphasise, is not a form inquiry, but a deliberated destruction of what
is real - this has been plain from the start of their activities.

> And I bet P Innes would have you talking
> Andean by the end of the week.

I doubt anyone could learn much of the 5 native groupings of Andean speech
in a week - but again, the mockery is to /deny/ that any exist. The writer
Brennen is so obtuse that he doesn't know or care whether they exist or not,
anymore than he cares for the extancy of Anglo Saxon in current speech.

Previously I countered another group containing Brennen using anal language
in an humanities newsgroup to persecute a woman, making deliberate
distortions of her name and the usual contentless ad-argumentum
contradictions of her writing.

Plus references to those who resented such means of address. Repressed
homosexual panic, I asked? Of course not, Brennen said, referring to other
men's bottoms means 'nothing'!~ ;))

If Brennen is intent on committing other than more hate-speech here, let him
come up with some basis of my use of chess engine use in correspondance
chess. But he won't do that, since as I just wrote about Fischer, the
complex is dissassociated from those aspects of intelligence which recognise
the need to substantiate one's ideas with facts or experience. This
unfortunate is unable to achieve this, or even recognise its necessity -
since it doesn't happen inside him, he can't externalise what doesn't exist.

Meanwhile such people are not 'mentally ill', but something not nothing
possesses them, and more than somewhat inhibits their ability to act with
any decency or contribution in a society of other human beings.

Phil Innes




  
Date: 24 Jul 2008 05:35:58
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Neil Brennen's claim to fame.
On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week at my
> expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the precaution
> of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry Parr, so
> that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.


Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this lie
for you?


   
Date: 24 Jul 2008 09:34:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Neil Brennen's claim to fame.

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dowd - You even denied I invited you here to my house for a week at my
>> expense since you seemed to be having a hard time. I did take the
>> precaution
>> of copying a friend of /yours/, Taylor Kingston, and also Larry Parr, so
>> that they could see the actual offer. My reward from you was abuse.
>
>
> Oh come on Phil that doesn't describe the story at all. Or is this lie
> for you?

I did say there were 2 witnesses! Both write here. If you have another story
to tell, tell it! Don't call people liars when it is so easy to
independently disprove it, by your friends and mine - otherwise you are in
danger of seeming to have nothing to say when I am in danger of winning
completely by mention of the witnesses: Taylor Kingston and Larry Parr.

Phil Innes




  
Date: 24 Jul 2008 05:34:13
From:
Subject: Re: Innes' rating, if any


The Historian wrote:
> On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:01:40 -0700 (PDT), SBD <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> [& How would these patzers know anything about that, anyway? Neither of them
> > >> even achieved the minimum rating I held in USA which was 2035]
> > >Is this the same Kennedy who was 2270? if so, your math kind of sucks.
> >
> > Not only that, but Greg Kennedy evidently has maintained that rating
> > through a number of recent events.
>
> What was the last chess event P Innes the Nearly an IM 2450 played in?
> Aside from the last hundred 'friendly' games against Rob, of course.


See http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296. He last
played in the Stratton Mountain Open in 1995.


  
Date: 24 Jul 2008 05:07:57
From: The Historian
Subject: Innes' rating, if any
On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:01:40 -0700 (PDT), SBD <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> [& How would these patzers know anything about that, anyway? Neither of them
> >> even achieved the minimum rating I held in USA which was 2035]
> >Is this the same Kennedy who was 2270? if so, your math kind of sucks.
>
> Not only that, but Greg Kennedy evidently has maintained that rating
> through a number of recent events.

What was the last chess event P Innes the Nearly an IM 2450 played in?
Aside from the last hundred 'friendly' games against Rob, of course.





  
Date: 20 Jul 2008 16:42:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> The comments by Phil Innes are so ridiculous I see no point in
> dignifying them with a response.

Neither dignifying nor even mentioning them, since, there could be another
reason Sam Sloan will not part with his 'dignity'.

ROFL

Just to remind reader of what is ridiculous, here was the conclusion of my
message;

'In other words, from USCF's point of view, it wants nothing to do with
quality control of the rating system, and therefore the problem 'just about
never' exists. Rather typical political logic."

I drew this from Sam Sloan's own words here to disport his 'logic' among the
people. But Sam Sloan is just a big mouth who wants 'freedom' for that
mouth. That is, freedom from responsible dialog, and freedom to insult
anyone he thinks fit.

This is another demonstration of cowardice from Sloan, and don't his allies
hate it!

The issue - completely neglected by Sloan is about USCF's own role in
things - Sloan gets off on the demon Trice, but, what about the demon
within? So let readers here assess what else he cut, and what he don't care
to answer:-

"But no, and not what I hear. Sandbagging is a big deal, even board
members
do it, remember? And if not for their rating, for that Master's title which
lets them charge quite a bit more to students - admits them to Fide
committees, and other bennies.

This apparently is quite okay with USCF since although a person was caused
to be resigned from the board for fraud, that person still acts as a TD.
USCF having promoted the person, giving him a rating floor, discovered the
cheat, even continues to accept results from him after the known cheating."

Just recently Sloan had a go at the volunteer of the month who he [ROFL] had
never heard of, and castigated him for not having a USCF rating.

When confronted by the fact that the preferred top TD in USA also had no
rating [incidentally, illegally] he shut up, since she is a friend of Chess
Don, who leaks much to the Sloan.

Therefore - no principal is involved here - just pure personality politics.

Phil Innes


> Sam Sloan




   
Date: 30 Sep 2008 14:02:49
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Chess = Caesar ?
And now for a really stupid theory - I read in the Rocky Mountain News
of Sept 4, 1892 that the origin of the words check and thus chess is
related to the capuchin monkey warning sound for danger. I have to
figure out how to work that brilliant theory into one of my articles!

Jerry Spinrad

On Sep 12, 12:26=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Alexandre had a bizarre theory on the word chess. He argued that it
> has the same root as jeu (i.e. game); if you want the theory you can
> see Regence 1850 pg 70, available on google books. He argued that
> chess was the root of all games and this was preserved in various
> languages. He had many bizarre theories on chess and the bible that
> don't hold up. One true origin of some note is the relation toexchequeur;=
this came from the chess board pattern of a tablecloth on
> which money for the king would be placed.
>
> I occasionally write down random things I find in articles about chess
> which I never get to share (since they have nothing to do with chess,
> but I find them interesting), so here is one - according to the Wiener
> Zeitung of August 23, 1864 the origin of the word chic is a student of
> the artist David named Chicque.
>
> JerrySpinrad
>
> On Sep 12, 11:32=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 11:42=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > In proposing the text below to Ray Keene, he counter proposed somethi=
ng
> > > quite other as the origin of the name:
>
> > > What's in a Word? Part 2.
>
> > > In discussing the origin of the word CHESS with Ray Keene, he propose=
d:
>
> > > chess english
> > > schach german
> > > sheikh arabic for ruler
> > > shah persian for king
> > > shogun hence shogi ;eader or general japanese
> > > shah maht the king is dead
> > > checkmate
> > > schachmatt
> > > caesar
> > > kaiser
> > > czar
> > > all different forms for ruler or emperor
> > > queen victorias official imperial title was kaisar-i-hind-empress of =
india
> > > in their language-hindu
> > > cesare-pronounced chessare is italian for caesar
> > > joru gesar is the mythological national hero of tibet
> > > cesare morte -caesar is dead
> > > caesar therefore is the derivation from which chess springs
>
> > > What do others think? Phil Innes
>
> > =A0 That kaiser and czar (or tsar) derive from Caesar is well known.
> > However, is there any evidence that sheikh and/or shah do also? And
> > even if they do, would that necessarily mean that the word "chess"
> > derives from Caesar?
> > =A0 The game supposedly originated in either India or China, areas that
> > never knew Roman authority. The proto-form of the game was called
> > "chaturanga" in Sanskrit. Chaturanga means quadripartite, or "having
> > four members," or "having four limbs" (per H.J.R. Murray), referring
> > to the four main components of the Indian army: chariots: elephants,
> > cavalry, and infantry. The word has nothing to do with Caesar.
> > =A0 If I understand Murray correctly, he states it was chaturanga, both
> > the game and the name, that became the Persian "chatrang" and the
> > Arabic "shatranj," and it was shatranj that, after its importation to
> > Europe, became modern Western chess. This would seem to argue against
> > any direct etymological relationship between the words "Caesar" and
> > "chess."
> > =A0 I present the above only to add to the discussion, not as any
> > conclusive argument. I have no expertise nor firm opinion on this and
> > am open to differing views.
>
> > > > **But what a shame we are not discussing the word CHESS; which is
> > > > tolerably complex in origin, and not clearly a loan-word. There is =
the A.
> > > > Sax CHESE; to chose, with a seconday meaning to see "Even til the h=
egh
> > > > bord he chese," being the past participle in Syr Gowghter, 312. Som=
e
> > > > people think it is a loan word from the Latin for Roman brass coins=
found
> > > > in some places in Gloucestershire, 'and so called by country people=
.' Not
> > > > unlikely an origin, many coins, stones etc, were original game piec=
es -
> > > > CHESSIL; gravel or pebbles [A. Sax], and the beach or gravel bank s=
till
> > > > named for it. Earliest referernce to a chess player I can find id
> > > > Middleton's CHESSNER. Likely most direct early reference is also A.=
Sax
> > > > from CHESTE (var. CHEESTE); strife, debate, which the atavist Gower=
uses.
> > > > The word CHEST is more clearly Latin, as is CHESTER, but the first =
means
> > > > 'coffin' and the second 'embalmer'. Neither likely candidates. Wher=
eas the
> > > > word CHESTS means chess; "The playe at chests," //Nomenclature, p. =
293.
>
> > > > Interesting is CHEKERE: (1) the exchequer //Langtoft p. 312 (2) the=
game
> > > > of chess //Rob. Glouc. p. 192. A later version is A. Norm, (3) a
> > > > chess-baord, but CHECKERED is a checkered sermon, one full of Greek=
and
> > > > Latin quotations.
>
> > > > Much later we have CHECKSTONE; a game played by children with round=
small
> > > > pebbles. It is mentioned in the early play of Apollo Shroving, 12mo=
. Lond.
> > > > 1627, p. 49.
>
> > > > Unclear if the origin of CHEK; fortune; ill-fortune, is from the Fr=
ench
> > > > echec? CHEKE means (1) choked //Ritson, (2) checked, as in the game=
of
> > > > chess ; and hence used metaphorically. (3) a person or fellow [Linc=
s.]
>
> > > > The word CHESS means in Lincolnshire; to crack.
>
> > > > =A0Who are what Nick Bourbaki would call
> > > > the "respected authorities" of human
> > > > language? =A0The very same blokes who
> > > > themselves cannot keep to the straight
> > > > and narrow ideologies they have put
> > > > forward, such as living or dead; this fact
> > > > can be seen at Web sites in which these
> > > > respected authorities peddle their wares,
>
> > > > **It is not just a matter of certainties based on very limited
> > > > experiences - it is also a matter of simplifying matters so as to r=
educe
> > > > the tension of the issue to simple results - somewhat at the cost o=
f being
> > > > further receptive to the whole. Therefore, people with no doubts an=
d with
> > > > pedantic certainties, are often cloth-eared.
>
> > > > while seemingly not being able to keep
> > > > safely within their own pedantic thinking
> > > > style-boxes (i.e. living or dead languages).
>
> > > >> Old English is dead, contains four old english words.
>
> > > > =A0That approach seems to have been refuted
> > > > countless times. =A0I prefer to point out the fact
> > > > that English professors sometimes write as
> > > > though the term "English" is all-inclusive,
> > > > gathering within itself old, middle, modern
> > > > and even future variants of a still-evolving
> > > > language, if you will. =A0 My approach targets
> > > > the weakest point: the pedants themselves.
>
> > > > **The term 'Old English' represents no language at all! But a colle=
ctive
> > > > reference to strongly varying dialects in England, some of which ha=
rdly
> > > > overlapped with other dialects so that there was mutual miscomprehe=
nsion.
> > > > The very use of 'Old English' or OE is merely short-hand for a grou=
p of
> > > > dialects [3 main ones], but unfortunately suggest to the unwary or
> > > > unstudied person that it refers to some common language of all the =
people.
> > > > Even in mid medieval times it was hard to understand others from 50=
miles
> > > > away. This is much remarked upon by itinerant merchants who would o=
ften
> > > > hire a local to 'bark' for them, or translate to local dialect - si=
nce
> > > > people don't like 'foreigners.'
>
> > > > **Only from about 900 was there even a written commonality in Engli=
sh,
> > > > which was something of a reduction of the range of words that peopl=
e
> > > > spoke, and actually constitued a highly artificial means of communi=
cation.
> > > > One reason for subsequent illiteracy is that even if you could read=
, the
> > > > words in the books were not the words you normally spoke - so there=
was a
> > > > rift between written English and what you could communicate verball=
y, in
> > > > speech. Alfred was 'the Great' because he attempted to resolve thes=
e
> > > > issues by educating his nation in an effort which continued to abou=
t 1100.
>
> > > > Phil Innes- 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: 30 Sep 2008 18:05:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess = Caesar ?

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
And now for a really stupid theory - I read in the Rocky Mountain News
of Sept 4, 1892 that the origin of the words check and thus chess is
related to the capuchin monkey warning sound for danger. I have to
figure out how to work that brilliant theory into one of my articles!

Jerry Spinrad

=======

**You should try upon the monastic link with chess.

CAPUCHIN: [Fr. capuchon, capuchine, from capuce, a hood or cowl, from /cape/
a cape]

A monk of the order of St Francis, so called from the /capuchon/ a stuff
cap, or cowl, the distinguishing badge of the order; [not cap.] a garment
for females, consisting of a cloak and hood in imitiation of the dress of
the Capuchin monks. //Webster. [which you will be able to look up]

CAP: (7) "The cap of a flail is the band of leather or wood through which
the middle-band passes loosely. Ther is one cap at the end of the
hand-staff, generally made of wood, and another at the end of the swingle,
made of leather. The term is at least as old as the fifteenth century, being
found in the Promt. Parv. 61, but it has escaped the notice of the
provincial glossarists. //Halliwell, [which you will not be able to look
up.]

CAPPUCCIO: a hood //Spenser. [See also CAPEL]

Phil Innes











On Sep 12, 12:26 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Alexandre had a bizarre theory on the word chess. He argued that it
> has the same root as jeu (i.e. game); if you want the theory you can
> see Regence 1850 pg 70, available on google books. He argued that
> chess was the root of all games and this was preserved in various
> languages. He had many bizarre theories on chess and the bible that
> don't hold up. One true origin of some note is the relation toexchequeur;
> this came from the chess board pattern of a tablecloth on
> which money for the king would be placed.
>
> I occasionally write down random things I find in articles about chess
> which I never get to share (since they have nothing to do with chess,
> but I find them interesting), so here is one - according to the Wiener
> Zeitung of August 23, 1864 the origin of the word chic is a student of
> the artist David named Chicque.
>
> JerrySpinrad
>
> On Sep 12, 11:32 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 11:42 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > In proposing the text below to Ray Keene, he counter proposed
> > > something
> > > quite other as the origin of the name:
>
> > > What's in a Word? Part 2.
>
> > > In discussing the origin of the word CHESS with Ray Keene, he
> > > proposed:
>
> > > chess english
> > > schach german
> > > sheikh arabic for ruler
> > > shah persian for king
> > > shogun hence shogi ;eader or general japanese
> > > shah maht the king is dead
> > > checkmate
> > > schachmatt
> > > caesar
> > > kaiser
> > > czar
> > > all different forms for ruler or emperor
> > > queen victorias official imperial title was kaisar-i-hind-empress of
> > > india
> > > in their language-hindu
> > > cesare-pronounced chessare is italian for caesar
> > > joru gesar is the mythological national hero of tibet
> > > cesare morte -caesar is dead
> > > caesar therefore is the derivation from which chess springs
>
> > > What do others think? Phil Innes
>
> > That kaiser and czar (or tsar) derive from Caesar is well known.
> > However, is there any evidence that sheikh and/or shah do also? And
> > even if they do, would that necessarily mean that the word "chess"
> > derives from Caesar?
> > The game supposedly originated in either India or China, areas that
> > never knew Roman authority. The proto-form of the game was called
> > "chaturanga" in Sanskrit. Chaturanga means quadripartite, or "having
> > four members," or "having four limbs" (per H.J.R. Murray), referring
> > to the four main components of the Indian army: chariots: elephants,
> > cavalry, and infantry. The word has nothing to do with Caesar.
> > If I understand Murray correctly, he states it was chaturanga, both
> > the game and the name, that became the Persian "chatrang" and the
> > Arabic "shatranj," and it was shatranj that, after its importation to
> > Europe, became modern Western chess. This would seem to argue against
> > any direct etymological relationship between the words "Caesar" and
> > "chess."
> > I present the above only to add to the discussion, not as any
> > conclusive argument. I have no expertise nor firm opinion on this and
> > am open to differing views.
>
> > > > **But what a shame we are not discussing the word CHESS; which is
> > > > tolerably complex in origin, and not clearly a loan-word. There is
> > > > the A.
> > > > Sax CHESE; to chose, with a seconday meaning to see "Even til the
> > > > hegh
> > > > bord he chese," being the past participle in Syr Gowghter, 312. Some
> > > > people think it is a loan word from the Latin for Roman brass coins
> > > > found
> > > > in some places in Gloucestershire, 'and so called by country
> > > > people.' Not
> > > > unlikely an origin, many coins, stones etc, were original game
> > > > pieces -
> > > > CHESSIL; gravel or pebbles [A. Sax], and the beach or gravel bank
> > > > still
> > > > named for it. Earliest referernce to a chess player I can find id
> > > > Middleton's CHESSNER. Likely most direct early reference is also A.
> > > > Sax
> > > > from CHESTE (var. CHEESTE); strife, debate, which the atavist Gower
> > > > uses.
> > > > The word CHEST is more clearly Latin, as is CHESTER, but the first
> > > > means
> > > > 'coffin' and the second 'embalmer'. Neither likely candidates.
> > > > Whereas the
> > > > word CHESTS means chess; "The playe at chests," //Nomenclature, p.
> > > > 293.
>
> > > > Interesting is CHEKERE: (1) the exchequer //Langtoft p. 312 (2) the
> > > > game
> > > > of chess //Rob. Glouc. p. 192. A later version is A. Norm, (3) a
> > > > chess-baord, but CHECKERED is a checkered sermon, one full of Greek
> > > > and
> > > > Latin quotations.
>
> > > > Much later we have CHECKSTONE; a game played by children with round
> > > > small
> > > > pebbles. It is mentioned in the early play of Apollo Shroving, 12mo.
> > > > Lond.
> > > > 1627, p. 49.
>
> > > > Unclear if the origin of CHEK; fortune; ill-fortune, is from the
> > > > French
> > > > echec? CHEKE means (1) choked //Ritson, (2) checked, as in the game
> > > > of
> > > > chess ; and hence used metaphorically. (3) a person or fellow
> > > > [Lincs.]
>
> > > > The word CHESS means in Lincolnshire; to crack.
>
> > > > Who are what Nick Bourbaki would call
> > > > the "respected authorities" of human
> > > > language? The very same blokes who
> > > > themselves cannot keep to the straight
> > > > and narrow ideologies they have put
> > > > forward, such as living or dead; this fact
> > > > can be seen at Web sites in which these
> > > > respected authorities peddle their wares,
>
> > > > **It is not just a matter of certainties based on very limited
> > > > experiences - it is also a matter of simplifying matters so as to
> > > > reduce
> > > > the tension of the issue to simple results - somewhat at the cost of
> > > > being
> > > > further receptive to the whole. Therefore, people with no doubts and
> > > > with
> > > > pedantic certainties, are often cloth-eared.
>
> > > > while seemingly not being able to keep
> > > > safely within their own pedantic thinking
> > > > style-boxes (i.e. living or dead languages).
>
> > > >> Old English is dead, contains four old english words.
>
> > > > That approach seems to have been refuted
> > > > countless times. I prefer to point out the fact
> > > > that English professors sometimes write as
> > > > though the term "English" is all-inclusive,
> > > > gathering within itself old, middle, modern
> > > > and even future variants of a still-evolving
> > > > language, if you will. My approach targets
> > > > the weakest point: the pedants themselves.
>
> > > > **The term 'Old English' represents no language at all! But a
> > > > collective
> > > > reference to strongly varying dialects in England, some of which
> > > > hardly
> > > > overlapped with other dialects so that there was mutual
> > > > miscomprehension.
> > > > The very use of 'Old English' or OE is merely short-hand for a group
> > > > of
> > > > dialects [3 main ones], but unfortunately suggest to the unwary or
> > > > unstudied person that it refers to some common language of all the
> > > > people.
> > > > Even in mid medieval times it was hard to understand others from 50
> > > > miles
> > > > away. This is much remarked upon by itinerant merchants who would
> > > > often
> > > > hire a local to 'bark' for them, or translate to local dialect -
> > > > since
> > > > people don't like 'foreigners.'
>
> > > > **Only from about 900 was there even a written commonality in
> > > > English,
> > > > which was something of a reduction of the range of words that people
> > > > spoke, and actually constitued a highly artificial means of
> > > > communication.
> > > > One reason for subsequent illiteracy is that even if you could read,
> > > > the
> > > > words in the books were not the words you normally spoke - so there
> > > > was a
> > > > rift between written English and what you could communicate
> > > > verbally, in
> > > > speech. Alfred was 'the Great' because he attempted to resolve these
> > > > issues by educating his nation in an effort which continued to about
> > > > 1100.
>
> > > > Phil Innes- 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: 12 Sep 2008 10:26:28
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Chess = Caesar ?
Alexandre had a bizarre theory on the word chess. He argued that it
has the same root as jeu (i.e. game); if you want the theory you can
see Regence 1850 pg 70, available on google books. He argued that
chess was the root of all games and this was preserved in various
languages. He had many bizarre theories on chess and the bible that
don't hold up. One true origin of some note is the relation to
exchequeur; this came from the chess board pattern of a tablecloth on
which money for the king would be placed.

I occasionally write down random things I find in articles about chess
which I never get to share (since they have nothing to do with chess,
but I find them interesting), so here is one - according to the Wiener
Zeitung of August 23, 1864 the origin of the word chic is a student of
the artist David named Chicque.

Jerry Spinrad

On Sep 12, 11:32=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 11:42=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In proposing the text below to Ray Keene, he counter proposed something
> > quite other as the origin of the name:
>
> > What's in a Word? Part 2.
>
> > In discussing the origin of the word CHESS with Ray Keene, he proposed:
>
> > chess english
> > schach german
> > sheikh arabic for ruler
> > shah persian for king
> > shogun hence shogi ;eader or general japanese
> > shah maht the king is dead
> > checkmate
> > schachmatt
> > caesar
> > kaiser
> > czar
> > all different forms for ruler or emperor
> > queen victorias official imperial title was kaisar-i-hind-empress of in=
dia
> > in their language-hindu
> > cesare-pronounced chessare is italian for caesar
> > joru gesar is the mythological national hero of tibet
> > cesare morte -caesar is dead
> > caesar therefore is the derivation from which chess springs
>
> > What do others think? Phil Innes
>
> =A0 That kaiser and czar (or tsar) derive from Caesar is well known.
> However, is there any evidence that sheikh and/or shah do also? And
> even if they do, would that necessarily mean that the word "chess"
> derives from Caesar?
> =A0 The game supposedly originated in either India or China, areas that
> never knew Roman authority. The proto-form of the game was called
> "chaturanga" in Sanskrit. Chaturanga means quadripartite, or "having
> four members," or "having four limbs" (per H.J.R. Murray), referring
> to the four main components of the Indian army: chariots: elephants,
> cavalry, and infantry. The word has nothing to do with Caesar.
> =A0 If I understand Murray correctly, he states it was chaturanga, both
> the game and the name, that became the Persian "chatrang" and the
> Arabic "shatranj," and it was shatranj that, after its importation to
> Europe, became modern Western chess. This would seem to argue against
> any direct etymological relationship between the words "Caesar" and
> "chess."
> =A0 I present the above only to add to the discussion, not as any
> conclusive argument. I have no expertise nor firm opinion on this and
> am open to differing views.
>
>
>
> > > **But what a shame we are not discussing the word CHESS; which is
> > > tolerably complex in origin, and not clearly a loan-word. There is th=
e A.
> > > Sax CHESE; to chose, with a seconday meaning to see "Even til the heg=
h
> > > bord he chese," being the past participle in Syr Gowghter, 312. Some
> > > people think it is a loan word from the Latin for Roman brass coins f=
ound
> > > in some places in Gloucestershire, 'and so called by country people.'=
Not
> > > unlikely an origin, many coins, stones etc, were original game pieces=
-
> > > CHESSIL; gravel or pebbles [A. Sax], and the beach or gravel bank sti=
ll
> > > named for it. Earliest referernce to a chess player I can find id
> > > Middleton's CHESSNER. Likely most direct early reference is also A. S=
ax
> > > from CHESTE (var. CHEESTE); strife, debate, which the atavist Gower u=
ses.
> > > The word CHEST is more clearly Latin, as is CHESTER, but the first me=
ans
> > > 'coffin' and the second 'embalmer'. Neither likely candidates. Wherea=
s the
> > > word CHESTS means chess; "The playe at chests," //Nomenclature, p. 29=
3.
>
> > > Interesting is CHEKERE: (1) the exchequer //Langtoft p. 312 (2) the g=
ame
> > > of chess //Rob. Glouc. p. 192. A later version is A. Norm, (3) a
> > > chess-baord, but CHECKERED is a checkered sermon, one full of Greek a=
nd
> > > Latin quotations.
>
> > > Much later we have CHECKSTONE; a game played by children with round s=
mall
> > > pebbles. It is mentioned in the early play of Apollo Shroving, 12mo. =
Lond.
> > > 1627, p. 49.
>
> > > Unclear if the origin of CHEK; fortune; ill-fortune, is from the Fren=
ch
> > > echec? CHEKE means (1) choked //Ritson, (2) checked, as in the game o=
f
> > > chess ; and hence used metaphorically. (3) a person or fellow [Lincs.=
]
>
> > > The word CHESS means in Lincolnshire; to crack.
>
> > > =A0Who are what Nick Bourbaki would call
> > > the "respected authorities" of human
> > > language? =A0The very same blokes who
> > > themselves cannot keep to the straight
> > > and narrow ideologies they have put
> > > forward, such as living or dead; this fact
> > > can be seen at Web sites in which these
> > > respected authorities peddle their wares,
>
> > > **It is not just a matter of certainties based on very limited
> > > experiences - it is also a matter of simplifying matters so as to red=
uce
> > > the tension of the issue to simple results - somewhat at the cost of =
being
> > > further receptive to the whole. Therefore, people with no doubts and =
with
> > > pedantic certainties, are often cloth-eared.
>
> > > while seemingly not being able to keep
> > > safely within their own pedantic thinking
> > > style-boxes (i.e. living or dead languages).
>
> > >> Old English is dead, contains four old english words.
>
> > > =A0That approach seems to have been refuted
> > > countless times. =A0I prefer to point out the fact
> > > that English professors sometimes write as
> > > though the term "English" is all-inclusive,
> > > gathering within itself old, middle, modern
> > > and even future variants of a still-evolving
> > > language, if you will. =A0 My approach targets
> > > the weakest point: the pedants themselves.
>
> > > **The term 'Old English' represents no language at all! But a collect=
ive
> > > reference to strongly varying dialects in England, some of which hard=
ly
> > > overlapped with other dialects so that there was mutual miscomprehens=
ion.
> > > The very use of 'Old English' or OE is merely short-hand for a group =
of
> > > dialects [3 main ones], but unfortunately suggest to the unwary or
> > > unstudied person that it refers to some common language of all the pe=
ople.
> > > Even in mid medieval times it was hard to understand others from 50 m=
iles
> > > away. This is much remarked upon by itinerant merchants who would oft=
en
> > > hire a local to 'bark' for them, or translate to local dialect - sinc=
e
> > > people don't like 'foreigners.'
>
> > > **Only from about 900 was there even a written commonality in English=
,
> > > which was something of a reduction of the range of words that people
> > > spoke, and actually constitued a highly artificial means of communica=
tion.
> > > One reason for subsequent illiteracy is that even if you could read, =
the
> > > words in the books were not the words you normally spoke - so there w=
as a
> > > rift between written English and what you could communicate verbally,=
in
> > > speech. Alfred was 'the Great' because he attempted to resolve these
> > > issues by educating his nation in an effort which continued to about =
1100.
>
> > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



    
Date: 15 Sep 2008 15:20:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess = Caesar ?

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Alexandre had a bizarre theory on the word chess. He argued that it
has the same root as jeu (i.e. game); if you want the theory you can
see Regence 1850 pg 70, available on google books. He argued that
chess was the root of all games and this was preserved in various
languages. He had many bizarre theories on chess and the bible that
don't hold up. One true origin of some note is the relation to
exchequeur; this came from the chess board pattern of a tablecloth on
which money for the king would be placed.

**Yes, this link to eschequer is carried in an American Brittanica 1898
/Akron.

**The puzzle about ESCHEKERE: chess; also the exchequer, is interesting.
(Also interesting is A. Sax ESCHTE; asked - which is not A. Norm as are
other ESC~ stems. With another A. Sax word ESHORNE; cut in two, is unusually
A. Sax root or root.)

**Furthermore, the city of Chester in England is an old Roman capital,
famous for its mosaics, including 'checker-board' ones. This is obviously
earlier than even known Persian origins [no later than 400AD] - and thereby
an unlikely candidate unless there is a similar checkerboard game introduced
by Romans to England [from Egyptian sources - there are several candidates]
from which an English term evolved, borrowed into early Saxon. A candidate
word in English for the introduction of the 'modern' game of chess.

**The point of the issue is where does the English word CHESS come from? It
is not strictly an inquiry about the origin of the game, but the origin of
the [presumed] loan-word into English which is in question. Keene's list
suggests exterior origins for it, and of course, a list can be contentious
since a mere list explicates nothing - my question was the source of
adoption into English language - when and from what? Was it ever a term used
[in English] by some orientalists before the Second Crusade, eg? Or is it an
A. Sax word already in use, similar in sense and sound to Keene's list, as
suggested by the preceeding paragraph? Phil Innes

I occasionally write down random things I find in articles about chess
which I never get to share (since they have nothing to do with chess,
but I find them interesting), so here is one - according to the Wiener
Zeitung of August 23, 1864 the origin of the word chic is a student of
the artist David named Chicque.

Jerry Spinrad

On Sep 12, 11:32 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 11:42 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In proposing the text below to Ray Keene, he counter proposed something
> > quite other as the origin of the name:
>
> > What's in a Word? Part 2.
>
> > In discussing the origin of the word CHESS with Ray Keene, he proposed:
>
> > chess english
> > schach german
> > sheikh arabic for ruler
> > shah persian for king
> > shogun hence shogi ;eader or general japanese
> > shah maht the king is dead
> > checkmate
> > schachmatt
> > caesar
> > kaiser
> > czar
> > all different forms for ruler or emperor
> > queen victorias official imperial title was kaisar-i-hind-empress of
> > india
> > in their language-hindu
> > cesare-pronounced chessare is italian for caesar
> > joru gesar is the mythological national hero of tibet
> > cesare morte -caesar is dead
> > caesar therefore is the derivation from which chess springs
>
> > What do others think? Phil Innes
>
> That kaiser and czar (or tsar) derive from Caesar is well known.
> However, is there any evidence that sheikh and/or shah do also? And
> even if they do, would that necessarily mean that the word "chess"
> derives from Caesar?
> The game supposedly originated in either India or China, areas that
> never knew Roman authority. The proto-form of the game was called
> "chaturanga" in Sanskrit. Chaturanga means quadripartite, or "having
> four members," or "having four limbs" (per H.J.R. Murray), referring
> to the four main components of the Indian army: chariots: elephants,
> cavalry, and infantry. The word has nothing to do with Caesar.
> If I understand Murray correctly, he states it was chaturanga, both
> the game and the name, that became the Persian "chatrang" and the
> Arabic "shatranj," and it was shatranj that, after its importation to
> Europe, became modern Western chess. This would seem to argue against
> any direct etymological relationship between the words "Caesar" and
> "chess."
> I present the above only to add to the discussion, not as any
> conclusive argument. I have no expertise nor firm opinion on this and
> am open to differing views.
>
>
>
> > > **But what a shame we are not discussing the word CHESS; which is
> > > tolerably complex in origin, and not clearly a loan-word. There is the
> > > A.
> > > Sax CHESE; to chose, with a seconday meaning to see "Even til the hegh
> > > bord he chese," being the past participle in Syr Gowghter, 312. Some
> > > people think it is a loan word from the Latin for Roman brass coins
> > > found
> > > in some places in Gloucestershire, 'and so called by country people.'
> > > Not
> > > unlikely an origin, many coins, stones etc, were original game
> > > pieces -
> > > CHESSIL; gravel or pebbles [A. Sax], and the beach or gravel bank
> > > still
> > > named for it. Earliest referernce to a chess player I can find id
> > > Middleton's CHESSNER. Likely most direct early reference is also A.
> > > Sax
> > > from CHESTE (var. CHEESTE); strife, debate, which the atavist Gower
> > > uses.
> > > The word CHEST is more clearly Latin, as is CHESTER, but the first
> > > means
> > > 'coffin' and the second 'embalmer'. Neither likely candidates. Whereas
> > > the
> > > word CHESTS means chess; "The playe at chests," //Nomenclature, p.
> > > 293.
>
> > > Interesting is CHEKERE: (1) the exchequer //Langtoft p. 312 (2) the
> > > game
> > > of chess //Rob. Glouc. p. 192. A later version is A. Norm, (3) a
> > > chess-baord, but CHECKERED is a checkered sermon, one full of Greek
> > > and
> > > Latin quotations.
>
> > > Much later we have CHECKSTONE; a game played by children with round
> > > small
> > > pebbles. It is mentioned in the early play of Apollo Shroving, 12mo.
> > > Lond.
> > > 1627, p. 49.
>
> > > Unclear if the origin of CHEK; fortune; ill-fortune, is from the
> > > French
> > > echec? CHEKE means (1) choked //Ritson, (2) checked, as in the game of
> > > chess ; and hence used metaphorically. (3) a person or fellow [Lincs.]
>
> > > The word CHESS means in Lincolnshire; to crack.
>
> > > Who are what Nick Bourbaki would call
> > > the "respected authorities" of human
> > > language? The very same blokes who
> > > themselves cannot keep to the straight
> > > and narrow ideologies they have put
> > > forward, such as living or dead; this fact
> > > can be seen at Web sites in which these
> > > respected authorities peddle their wares,
>
> > > **It is not just a matter of certainties based on very limited
> > > experiences - it is also a matter of simplifying matters so as to
> > > reduce
> > > the tension of the issue to simple results - somewhat at the cost of
> > > being
> > > further receptive to the whole. Therefore, people with no doubts and
> > > with
> > > pedantic certainties, are often cloth-eared.
>
> > > while seemingly not being able to keep
> > > safely within their own pedantic thinking
> > > style-boxes (i.e. living or dead languages).
>
> > >> Old English is dead, contains four old english words.
>
> > > That approach seems to have been refuted
> > > countless times. I prefer to point out the fact
> > > that English professors sometimes write as
> > > though the term "English" is all-inclusive,
> > > gathering within itself old, middle, modern
> > > and even future variants of a still-evolving
> > > language, if you will. My approach targets
> > > the weakest point: the pedants themselves.
>
> > > **The term 'Old English' represents no language at all! But a
> > > collective
> > > reference to strongly varying dialects in England, some of which
> > > hardly
> > > overlapped with other dialects so that there was mutual
> > > miscomprehension.
> > > The very use of 'Old English' or OE is merely short-hand for a group
> > > of
> > > dialects [3 main ones], but unfortunately suggest to the unwary or
> > > unstudied person that it refers to some common language of all the
> > > people.
> > > Even in mid medieval times it was hard to understand others from 50
> > > miles
> > > away. This is much remarked upon by itinerant merchants who would
> > > often
> > > hire a local to 'bark' for them, or translate to local dialect - since
> > > people don't like 'foreigners.'
>
> > > **Only from about 900 was there even a written commonality in English,
> > > which was something of a reduction of the range of words that people
> > > spoke, and actually constitued a highly artificial means of
> > > communication.
> > > One reason for subsequent illiteracy is that even if you could read,
> > > the
> > > words in the books were not the words you normally spoke - so there
> > > was a
> > > rift between written English and what you could communicate verbally,
> > > in
> > > speech. Alfred was 'the Great' because he attempted to resolve these
> > > issues by educating his nation in an effort which continued to about
> > > 1100.
>
> > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




   
Date: 12 Sep 2008 09:32:10
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Chess = Caesar ?
On Sep 12, 11:42=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> In proposing the text below to Ray Keene, he counter proposed something
> quite other as the origin of the name:
>
> What's in a Word? Part 2.
>
> In discussing the origin of the word CHESS with Ray Keene, he proposed:
>
> chess english
> schach german
> sheikh arabic for ruler
> shah persian for king
> shogun hence shogi ;eader or general japanese
> shah maht the king is dead
> checkmate
> schachmatt
> caesar
> kaiser
> czar
> all different forms for ruler or emperor
> queen victorias official imperial title was kaisar-i-hind-empress of indi=
a
> in their language-hindu
> cesare-pronounced chessare is italian for caesar
> joru gesar is the mythological national hero of tibet
> cesare morte -caesar is dead
> caesar therefore is the derivation from which chess springs
>
> What do others think? Phil Innes

That kaiser and czar (or tsar) derive from Caesar is well known.
However, is there any evidence that sheikh and/or shah do also? And
even if they do, would that necessarily mean that the word "chess"
derives from Caesar?
The game supposedly originated in either India or China, areas that
never knew Roman authority. The proto-form of the game was called
"chaturanga" in Sanskrit. Chaturanga means quadripartite, or "having
four members," or "having four limbs" (per H.J.R. Murray), referring
to the four main components of the Indian army: chariots: elephants,
cavalry, and infantry. The word has nothing to do with Caesar.
If I understand Murray correctly, he states it was chaturanga, both
the game and the name, that became the Persian "chatrang" and the
Arabic "shatranj," and it was shatranj that, after its importation to
Europe, became modern Western chess. This would seem to argue against
any direct etymological relationship between the words "Caesar" and
"chess."
I present the above only to add to the discussion, not as any
conclusive argument. I have no expertise nor firm opinion on this and
am open to differing views.

> > **But what a shame we are not discussing the word CHESS; which is
> > tolerably complex in origin, and not clearly a loan-word. There is the =
A.
> > Sax CHESE; to chose, with a seconday meaning to see "Even til the hegh
> > bord he chese," being the past participle in Syr Gowghter, 312. Some
> > people think it is a loan word from the Latin for Roman brass coins fou=
nd
> > in some places in Gloucestershire, 'and so called by country people.' N=
ot
> > unlikely an origin, many coins, stones etc, were original game pieces -
> > CHESSIL; gravel or pebbles [A. Sax], and the beach or gravel bank still
> > named for it. Earliest referernce to a chess player I can find id
> > Middleton's CHESSNER. Likely most direct early reference is also A. Sax
> > from CHESTE (var. CHEESTE); strife, debate, which the atavist Gower use=
s.
> > The word CHEST is more clearly Latin, as is CHESTER, but the first mean=
s
> > 'coffin' and the second 'embalmer'. Neither likely candidates. Whereas =
the
> > word CHESTS means chess; "The playe at chests," //Nomenclature, p. 293.
>
> > Interesting is CHEKERE: (1) the exchequer //Langtoft p. 312 (2) the gam=
e
> > of chess //Rob. Glouc. p. 192. A later version is A. Norm, (3) a
> > chess-baord, but CHECKERED is a checkered sermon, one full of Greek and
> > Latin quotations.
>
> > Much later we have CHECKSTONE; a game played by children with round sma=
ll
> > pebbles. It is mentioned in the early play of Apollo Shroving, 12mo. Lo=
nd.
> > 1627, p. 49.
>
> > Unclear if the origin of CHEK; fortune; ill-fortune, is from the French
> > echec? CHEKE means (1) choked //Ritson, (2) checked, as in the game of
> > chess ; and hence used metaphorically. (3) a person or fellow [Lincs.]
>
> > The word CHESS means in Lincolnshire; to crack.
>
> > =A0Who are what Nick Bourbaki would call
> > the "respected authorities" of human
> > language? =A0The very same blokes who
> > themselves cannot keep to the straight
> > and narrow ideologies they have put
> > forward, such as living or dead; this fact
> > can be seen at Web sites in which these
> > respected authorities peddle their wares,
>
> > **It is not just a matter of certainties based on very limited
> > experiences - it is also a matter of simplifying matters so as to reduc=
e
> > the tension of the issue to simple results - somewhat at the cost of be=
ing
> > further receptive to the whole. Therefore, people with no doubts and wi=
th
> > pedantic certainties, are often cloth-eared.
>
> > while seemingly not being able to keep
> > safely within their own pedantic thinking
> > style-boxes (i.e. living or dead languages).
>
> >> Old English is dead, contains four old english words.
>
> > =A0That approach seems to have been refuted
> > countless times. =A0I prefer to point out the fact
> > that English professors sometimes write as
> > though the term "English" is all-inclusive,
> > gathering within itself old, middle, modern
> > and even future variants of a still-evolving
> > language, if you will. =A0 My approach targets
> > the weakest point: the pedants themselves.
>
> > **The term 'Old English' represents no language at all! But a collectiv=
e
> > reference to strongly varying dialects in England, some of which hardly
> > overlapped with other dialects so that there was mutual miscomprehensio=
n.
> > The very use of 'Old English' or OE is merely short-hand for a group of
> > dialects [3 main ones], but unfortunately suggest to the unwary or
> > unstudied person that it refers to some common language of all the peop=
le.
> > Even in mid medieval times it was hard to understand others from 50 mil=
es
> > away. This is much remarked upon by itinerant merchants who would often
> > hire a local to 'bark' for them, or translate to local dialect - since
> > people don't like 'foreigners.'
>
> > **Only from about 900 was there even a written commonality in English,
> > which was something of a reduction of the range of words that people
> > spoke, and actually constitued a highly artificial means of communicati=
on.
> > One reason for subsequent illiteracy is that even if you could read, th=
e
> > words in the books were not the words you normally spoke - so there was=
a
> > rift between written English and what you could communicate verbally, i=
n
> > speech. Alfred was 'the Great' because he attempted to resolve these
> > issues by educating his nation in an effort which continued to about 11=
00.
>
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



   
Date: 12 Sep 2008 08:05:23
From: none
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift
On Sep 12, 10:25=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
> On Sep 11, 4:44 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > What's this now? - no quotation, a misunderstanding, wilfull? A 180 deg=
ree
> > reverse?
>
> > If its the same word, it ain't dead - get it? It is not repining,
> > resurrected, borrowed, loaned or nuthin. Nuthin changed whatever over
> > 1,500
> > years, and that is what I said.
>
> > Helps-not [a native American name for a contradictory child-mind] has n=
ot
> > noticed this 'subtley' in my proposal.
>
> > Instead of any attempt to address a subject, of which helps-not is
> > entirely
> > ignornant, he attempts to discern via [only his own] dumbth.
>
> =A0 Speaking of "dumbth", Dr. IMnes seems
> blissfully unaware that my comments
> related not to him, but to the ignoramuses
>
> **The point sir, is not 'who' at all. Doesn't matter who, as you yourself
> note below. BTW, DUMBLE is an old Wiltshire word, stupid, very dull. This=
is
> similar to DUMB_FOUND; to perplex, or confound. It was that twit Shakespe=
are
> who offered a meaning; 'to make dumb', ie, to silence. Interestingly, the
> Harry Potter character DUMBLEDORE is a Devon word; the humble-bee, though
> sometimes meaning a beetle [south], with only subsidiary meaning; a stupi=
d
> fellow [Somerset]. The theatrical DUMB-SHOW [Nares] was never a mime, but=
an
> extract from a drama in order to promote the whole thing. I wonder what t=
his
> game was? DUM-CRAMBO; a child's game menioned in Moor's Suffolk words. At
> end, Shakespeare's usage produced more 'silent' themes, such as DUMB-WIFE=
, a
> silent person thought in Cumberland to have =A0the t of prescience. Cu=
rrent
> usage is retained in bridge, with 'the dummy', originating from whist; "i=
n 2
> handed whist, the person who holds two hands plays dummy." I can't finish
> without mention of DUMPLING; whose original meaning was :: a fat dwarf, f=
rom
> which DUMPY is still extant for 'short and thick'. There are a few
> dialectical variation on the stem DUN~ DUNNY; deaf, stupid, nervous [West=
],
> and DUNESEPOLL; a stupid fellow [Devon]. Another Devon word got Nigel Sho=
rt
> into trouble earlier this year when he called a Fide official a
> 'dunderhead', which has the sense of thunderstruck or witless. DUNNER;
> thunder [Cocaygne].
>
> who bog down like Tiger tanks in their own
> pedantry and mud.
>
> **Another synonym! MUD: stupid fellow [Isle of Wight]
>
> **But what a shame we are not discussing the word CHESS; which is tolerab=
ly
> complex in origin, and not clearly a loan-word. There is the A. Sax CHESE=
;
> to chose, with a seconday meaning to see "Even til the hegh bord he chese=
,"
> being the past participle in Syr Gowghter, 312. Some people think it is a
> loan word from the Latin for Roman brass coins found in some places in
> Gloucestershire, 'and so called by country people.' Not unlikely an origi=
n,
> many coins, stones etc, were original game pieces - CHESSIL; gravel or
> pebbles [A. Sax], and the beach or gravel bank still named for it. Earlie=
st
> referernce to a chess player I can find id Middleton's CHESSNER. Likely m=
ost
> direct early reference is also A. Sax from CHESTE (var. CHEESTE); strife,
> debate, which the atavist Gower uses. The word CHEST is more clearly Lati=
n,
> as is CHESTER, but the first means 'coffin' and the second 'embalmer'.
> Neither likely candidates. Whereas the word CHESTS means chess; "The play=
e
> at chests," //Nomenclature, p. 293.
>
> Interesting is CHEKERE: (1) the exchequer //Langtoft p. 312 (2) the game =
of
> chess //Rob. Glouc. p. 192. A later version is A. Norm, (3) a chess-baord=
,
> but CHECKERED is a checkered sermon, one full of Greek and Latin quotatio=
ns.
>
> Much later we have CHECKSTONE; a game played by children with round small
> pebbles. It is mentioned in the early play of Apollo Shroving, 12mo. Lond=
.
> 1627, p. 49.
>
> Unclear if the origin of CHEK; fortune; ill-fortune, is from the French
> echec? CHEKE means (1) choked //Ritson, (2) checked, as in the game of ch=
ess
> ; and hence used metaphorically. (3) a person or fellow [Lincs.]
>
> The word CHESS means in Lincolnshire; to crack.
>
> =A0 Who are what Nick Bourbaki would call
> the "respected authorities" of human
> language? =A0The very same blokes who
> themselves cannot keep to the straight
> and narrow ideologies they have put
> forward, such as living or dead; this fact
> can be seen at Web sites in which these
> respected authorities peddle their wares,
>
> **It is not just a matter of certainties based on very limited experience=
s -
> it is also a matter of simplifying matters so as to reduce the tension of
> the issue to simple results - somewhat at the cost of being further
> receptive to the whole. Therefore, people with no doubts and with pedanti=
c
> certainties, are often cloth-eared.
>
> while seemingly not being able to keep
> safely within their own pedantic thinking
> style-boxes (i.e. living or dead languages).
>
> > Old English is dead, contains four old english words.
>
> =A0 That approach seems to have been refuted
> countless times. =A0I prefer to point out the fact
> that English professors sometimes write as
> though the term "English" is all-inclusive,
> gathering within itself old, middle, modern
> and even future variants of a still-evolving
> language, if you will. =A0 My approach targets
> the weakest point: the pedants themselves.
>
> **The term 'Old English' represents no language at all! But a collective
> reference to strongly varying dialects in England, some of which hardly
> overlapped with other dialects so that there was mutual miscomprehension.
> The very use of 'Old English' or OE is merely short-hand for a group of
> dialects [3 main ones], but unfortunately suggest to the unwary or unstud=
ied
> person that it refers to some common language of all the people. Even in =
mid
> medieval times it was hard to understand others from 50 miles away. This =
is
> much remarked upon by itinerant merchants who would often hire a local to
> 'bark' for them, or translate to local dialect - since people don't like
> 'foreigners.'
>
> **Only from about 900 was there even a written commonality in English, wh=
ich
> was something of a reduction of the range of words that people spoke, and
> actually constitued a highly artificial means of communication. One reaso=
n
> for subsequent illiteracy is that even if you could read, the words in th=
e
> books were not the words you normally spoke - so there was a rift between
> written English and what you could communicate verbally, in speech. Alfre=
d
> was 'the Great' because he attempted to resolve these issues by educating
> his nation in an effort which continued to about 1100.
>
> Phil Innes

Olde English is what is spoken in Britain. It is a dying language as
modern English is da stuff whats spoken in da hoods of da States. It
be derived from Anglo-Saxon and polished by Eubonics.


   
Date: 11 Sep 2008 16:10:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift
On Sep 11, 4:44=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> What's this now? - no quotation, a misunderstanding, wilfull? A 180 degre=
e
> reverse?
>
> If its the same word, it ain't dead - get it? It is not repining,
> resurrected, borrowed, loaned or nuthin. Nuthin changed whatever over 1,5=
00
> years, and that is what I said.
>
> Helps-not [a native American name for a contradictory child-mind] has not
> noticed this 'subtley' in my proposal.
>
> Instead of any attempt to address a subject, of which helps-not is entire=
ly
> ignornant, he attempts to discern via [only his own] dumbth.


Speaking of "dumbth", Dr. IMnes seems
blissfully unaware that my comments
related not to him, but to the ignoramuses
who bog down like Tiger tanks in their own
pedantry and mud.

Who are what Nick Bourbaki would call
the "respected authorities" of human
language? The very same blokes who
themselves cannot keep to the straight
and narrow ideologies they have put
forward, such as living or dead; this fact
can be seen at Web sites in which these
respected authorities peddle their wares,
while seemingly not being able to keep
safely within their own pedantic thinking
style-boxes (i.e. living or dead languages).


> Old English is dead, contains four old english words.


That approach seems to have been refuted
countless times. I prefer to point out the fact
that English professors sometimes write as
though the term "English" is all-inclusive,
gathering within itself old, middle, modern
and even future variants of a still-evolving
language, if you will. My approach targets
the weakest point: the pedants themselves.


> Its that complicated for some Americans!~ =A0:)))


The poor marksman will often require a
wide spectrum on which to struggle to get
his aim. Here, we see what can happen
when a blind man grasps at straws, by
attempting to target an entire continent
of peoples. LOL


> And that is what they do here regularly, they propose impossibilities, an=
d
> then fuck-unto-others who say aught different. They propose it so much th=
ey
> think they are right rather than impossibly stupid to engage.


Let the Evans ratpackers be; they have
not caused any more trouble here, lately.


-- help bot






    
Date: 12 Sep 2008 10:25:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
On Sep 11, 4:44 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> What's this now? - no quotation, a misunderstanding, wilfull? A 180 degree
> reverse?
>
> If its the same word, it ain't dead - get it? It is not repining,
> resurrected, borrowed, loaned or nuthin. Nuthin changed whatever over
> 1,500
> years, and that is what I said.
>
> Helps-not [a native American name for a contradictory child-mind] has not
> noticed this 'subtley' in my proposal.
>
> Instead of any attempt to address a subject, of which helps-not is
> entirely
> ignornant, he attempts to discern via [only his own] dumbth.


Speaking of "dumbth", Dr. IMnes seems
blissfully unaware that my comments
related not to him, but to the ignoramuses

**The point sir, is not 'who' at all. Doesn't matter who, as you yourself
note below. BTW, DUMBLE is an old Wiltshire word, stupid, very dull. This is
similar to DUMB_FOUND; to perplex, or confound. It was that twit Shakespeare
who offered a meaning; 'to make dumb', ie, to silence. Interestingly, the
Harry Potter character DUMBLEDORE is a Devon word; the humble-bee, though
sometimes meaning a beetle [south], with only subsidiary meaning; a stupid
fellow [Somerset]. The theatrical DUMB-SHOW [Nares] was never a mime, but an
extract from a drama in order to promote the whole thing. I wonder what this
game was? DUM-CRAMBO; a child's game menioned in Moor's Suffolk words. At
end, Shakespeare's usage produced more 'silent' themes, such as DUMB-WIFE, a
silent person thought in Cumberland to have the t of prescience. Current
usage is retained in bridge, with 'the dummy', originating from whist; "in 2
handed whist, the person who holds two hands plays dummy." I can't finish
without mention of DUMPLING; whose original meaning was :: a fat dwarf, from
which DUMPY is still extant for 'short and thick'. There are a few
dialectical variation on the stem DUN~ DUNNY; deaf, stupid, nervous [West],
and DUNESEPOLL; a stupid fellow [Devon]. Another Devon word got Nigel Short
into trouble earlier this year when he called a Fide official a
'dunderhead', which has the sense of thunderstruck or witless. DUNNER;
thunder [Cocaygne].


who bog down like Tiger tanks in their own
pedantry and mud.


**Another synonym! MUD: stupid fellow [Isle of Wight]

**But what a shame we are not discussing the word CHESS; which is tolerably
complex in origin, and not clearly a loan-word. There is the A. Sax CHESE;
to chose, with a seconday meaning to see "Even til the hegh bord he chese,"
being the past participle in Syr Gowghter, 312. Some people think it is a
loan word from the Latin for Roman brass coins found in some places in
Gloucestershire, 'and so called by country people.' Not unlikely an origin,
many coins, stones etc, were original game pieces - CHESSIL; gravel or
pebbles [A. Sax], and the beach or gravel bank still named for it. Earliest
referernce to a chess player I can find id Middleton's CHESSNER. Likely most
direct early reference is also A. Sax from CHESTE (var. CHEESTE); strife,
debate, which the atavist Gower uses. The word CHEST is more clearly Latin,
as is CHESTER, but the first means 'coffin' and the second 'embalmer'.
Neither likely candidates. Whereas the word CHESTS means chess; "The playe
at chests," //Nomenclature, p. 293.

Interesting is CHEKERE: (1) the exchequer //Langtoft p. 312 (2) the game of
chess //Rob. Glouc. p. 192. A later version is A. Norm, (3) a chess-baord,
but CHECKERED is a checkered sermon, one full of Greek and Latin quotations.

Much later we have CHECKSTONE; a game played by children with round small
pebbles. It is mentioned in the early play of Apollo Shroving, 12mo. Lond.
1627, p. 49.

Unclear if the origin of CHEK; fortune; ill-fortune, is from the French
echec? CHEKE means (1) choked //Ritson, (2) checked, as in the game of chess
; and hence used metaphorically. (3) a person or fellow [Lincs.]

The word CHESS means in Lincolnshire; to crack.



Who are what Nick Bourbaki would call
the "respected authorities" of human
language? The very same blokes who
themselves cannot keep to the straight
and narrow ideologies they have put
forward, such as living or dead; this fact
can be seen at Web sites in which these
respected authorities peddle their wares,

**It is not just a matter of certainties based on very limited experiences -
it is also a matter of simplifying matters so as to reduce the tension of
the issue to simple results - somewhat at the cost of being further
receptive to the whole. Therefore, people with no doubts and with pedantic
certainties, are often cloth-eared.

while seemingly not being able to keep
safely within their own pedantic thinking
style-boxes (i.e. living or dead languages).


> Old English is dead, contains four old english words.


That approach seems to have been refuted
countless times. I prefer to point out the fact
that English professors sometimes write as
though the term "English" is all-inclusive,
gathering within itself old, middle, modern
and even future variants of a still-evolving
language, if you will. My approach targets
the weakest point: the pedants themselves.


**The term 'Old English' represents no language at all! But a collective
reference to strongly varying dialects in England, some of which hardly
overlapped with other dialects so that there was mutual miscomprehension.
The very use of 'Old English' or OE is merely short-hand for a group of
dialects [3 main ones], but unfortunately suggest to the unwary or unstudied
person that it refers to some common language of all the people. Even in mid
medieval times it was hard to understand others from 50 miles away. This is
much remarked upon by itinerant merchants who would often hire a local to
'bark' for them, or translate to local dialect - since people don't like
'foreigners.'

**Only from about 900 was there even a written commonality in English, which
was something of a reduction of the range of words that people spoke, and
actually constitued a highly artificial means of communication. One reason
for subsequent illiteracy is that even if you could read, the words in the
books were not the words you normally spoke - so there was a rift between
written English and what you could communicate verbally, in speech. Alfred
was 'the Great' because he attempted to resolve these issues by educating
his nation in an effort which continued to about 1100.

Phil Innes





     
Date: 12 Sep 2008 11:42:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Chess = Caesar ?
In proposing the text below to Ray Keene, he counter proposed something
quite other as the origin of the name:

What's in a Word? Part 2.

In discussing the origin of the word CHESS with Ray Keene, he proposed:



chess english
schach german
sheikh arabic for ruler
shah persian for king
shogun hence shogi ;eader or general japanese
shah maht the king is dead
checkmate
schachmatt
caesar
kaiser
czar
all different forms for ruler or emperor
queen victorias official imperial title was kaisar-i-hind-empress of india
in their language-hindu
cesare-pronounced chessare is italian for caesar
joru gesar is the mythological national hero of tibet
cesare morte -caesar is dead
caesar therefore is the derivation from which chess springs

What do others think? Phil Innes

> **But what a shame we are not discussing the word CHESS; which is
> tolerably complex in origin, and not clearly a loan-word. There is the A.
> Sax CHESE; to chose, with a seconday meaning to see "Even til the hegh
> bord he chese," being the past participle in Syr Gowghter, 312. Some
> people think it is a loan word from the Latin for Roman brass coins found
> in some places in Gloucestershire, 'and so called by country people.' Not
> unlikely an origin, many coins, stones etc, were original game pieces -
> CHESSIL; gravel or pebbles [A. Sax], and the beach or gravel bank still
> named for it. Earliest referernce to a chess player I can find id
> Middleton's CHESSNER. Likely most direct early reference is also A. Sax
> from CHESTE (var. CHEESTE); strife, debate, which the atavist Gower uses.
> The word CHEST is more clearly Latin, as is CHESTER, but the first means
> 'coffin' and the second 'embalmer'. Neither likely candidates. Whereas the
> word CHESTS means chess; "The playe at chests," //Nomenclature, p. 293.
>
> Interesting is CHEKERE: (1) the exchequer //Langtoft p. 312 (2) the game
> of chess //Rob. Glouc. p. 192. A later version is A. Norm, (3) a
> chess-baord, but CHECKERED is a checkered sermon, one full of Greek and
> Latin quotations.
>
> Much later we have CHECKSTONE; a game played by children with round small
> pebbles. It is mentioned in the early play of Apollo Shroving, 12mo. Lond.
> 1627, p. 49.
>
> Unclear if the origin of CHEK; fortune; ill-fortune, is from the French
> echec? CHEKE means (1) choked //Ritson, (2) checked, as in the game of
> chess ; and hence used metaphorically. (3) a person or fellow [Lincs.]
>
> The word CHESS means in Lincolnshire; to crack.
>
>
>
> Who are what Nick Bourbaki would call
> the "respected authorities" of human
> language? The very same blokes who
> themselves cannot keep to the straight
> and narrow ideologies they have put
> forward, such as living or dead; this fact
> can be seen at Web sites in which these
> respected authorities peddle their wares,
>
> **It is not just a matter of certainties based on very limited
> experiences - it is also a matter of simplifying matters so as to reduce
> the tension of the issue to simple results - somewhat at the cost of being
> further receptive to the whole. Therefore, people with no doubts and with
> pedantic certainties, are often cloth-eared.
>
> while seemingly not being able to keep
> safely within their own pedantic thinking
> style-boxes (i.e. living or dead languages).
>
>
>> Old English is dead, contains four old english words.
>
>
> That approach seems to have been refuted
> countless times. I prefer to point out the fact
> that English professors sometimes write as
> though the term "English" is all-inclusive,
> gathering within itself old, middle, modern
> and even future variants of a still-evolving
> language, if you will. My approach targets
> the weakest point: the pedants themselves.
>
>
> **The term 'Old English' represents no language at all! But a collective
> reference to strongly varying dialects in England, some of which hardly
> overlapped with other dialects so that there was mutual miscomprehension.
> The very use of 'Old English' or OE is merely short-hand for a group of
> dialects [3 main ones], but unfortunately suggest to the unwary or
> unstudied person that it refers to some common language of all the people.
> Even in mid medieval times it was hard to understand others from 50 miles
> away. This is much remarked upon by itinerant merchants who would often
> hire a local to 'bark' for them, or translate to local dialect - since
> people don't like 'foreigners.'
>
> **Only from about 900 was there even a written commonality in English,
> which was something of a reduction of the range of words that people
> spoke, and actually constitued a highly artificial means of communication.
> One reason for subsequent illiteracy is that even if you could read, the
> words in the books were not the words you normally spoke - so there was a
> rift between written English and what you could communicate verbally, in
> speech. Alfred was 'the Great' because he attempted to resolve these
> issues by educating his nation in an effort which continued to about 1100.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>




      
Date: 13 Sep 2008 09:53:19
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Chess = Caesar ?
Chess One wrote:
.
> In discussing the origin of the word CHESS with Ray Keene, he proposed:
>
> chess english
> schach german
> sheikh arabic for ruler
> shah persian for king
> shogun hence shogi ;eader or general japanese
> shah maht the king is dead
> checkmate
> schachmatt
> caesar
> kaiser
> czar
> all different forms for ruler or emperor
> queen victorias official imperial title was kaisar-i-hind-empress of india
> in their language-hindu
> cesare-pronounced chessare is italian for caesar
> joru gesar is the mythological national hero of tibet
> cesare morte -caesar is dead
> caesar therefore is the derivation from which chess springs
>
> What do others think? Phil Innes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Penguin..

t. attenborough.


   
Date: 10 Sep 2008 19:05:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift

[email protected] wrote:

> If the presence of loan-words from no-longer-spoken languages means
> that such languages are "not dead," then you are going to have to
> argue that Old Norse ("niggardly,"), Latin ("regal," "imperial"), and
> Classical Greek ("mausoleum," "ecumenical") are living languages. You
> can certainly use the term that way, but I'm afraid you won't be
> speaking the same ... language ... as the rest of us.


False dichotomy: a language must be either
"living" or else "dead".

In reality, languages evolve over time, and
this fact can be seen even in the writings of
those who might otherwise be considered
among the pedantic dichotomists them-
selves. For instance, at one Web site I've
seen the term "dead language" used just
as the Dr. IMnes critics suggest-- to indicate
languages which are no longer spoken in
their earlier forms today. *But at the very
same site* there can be found instances in
which are described these same languages,
having now evolved into newer forms--
hence, not dead, but /changed/.

In sum, this failure to grasp the fact that
languages can /evolve/ rather than just live
or die shows the depth of understanding of
a Dr. IMnes in sharp contrast to the shallow
and pedantic dullards who are hopelessly
trapped in their simplistic, black/white
"thinking" (or rather, aping) patterns. It is
unfortunate that the *one time* that Dr.
IMnes is not just completely and utterly
wrong, his critics choose to ceaselessly
attack him in their blind-pedant style.


-- help bot





    
Date: 11 Sep 2008 16:44:01
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> If the presence of loan-words from no-longer-spoken languages means
>> that such languages are "not dead," then you are going to have to
>> argue that Old Norse ("niggardly,"), Latin ("regal," "imperial"), and
>> Classical Greek ("mausoleum," "ecumenical") are living languages. You
>> can certainly use the term that way, but I'm afraid you won't be
>> speaking the same ... language ... as the rest of us.
>
>
> False dichotomy: a language must be either
> "living" or else "dead".
>
> In reality, languages evolve over time, and
> this fact can be seen even in the writings of
> those who might otherwise be considered
> among the pedantic dichotomists them-
> selves. For instance, at one Web site I've
> seen the term "dead language" used just
> as the Dr. IMnes critics suggest-- to indicate
> languages which are no longer spoken in
> their earlier forms today.

What's this now? - no quotation, a misunderstanding, wilfull? A 180 degree
reverse?

If its the same word, it ain't dead - get it? It is not repining,
resurrected, borrowed, loaned or nuthin. Nuthin changed whatever over 1,500
years, and that is what I said.

Helps-not [a native American name for a contradictory child-mind] has not
noticed this 'subtley' in my proposal.

Instead of any attempt to address a subject, of which helps-not is entirely
ignornant, he attempts to discern via [only his own] dumbth.

Old English is dead, contains four old english words. Its that complicated
for some Americans!~ :)))

And that is what they do here regularly, they propose impossibilities, and
then fuck-unto-others who say aught different. They propose it so much they
think they are right rather than impossibly stupid to engage.

This is the level of Hicksville, USA. USCF HQ relocated to such a place...
and behaves just like Greg Kennedy + Jesus + Lawyers - if the whole world
resents their dumbth, they say it is personal commentary.

Heuch! Saxons were never very bright; it is hard to think of anything in 600
years they came up with of themselves. Clod-hoppers, proud of it! They did
have values, howsomever, but not any of the above.

Phil Innes


> *But at the very
> same site* there can be found instances in
> which are described these same languages,
> having now evolved into newer forms--
> hence, not dead, but /changed/.
>
> In sum, this failure to grasp the fact that
> languages can /evolve/ rather than just live
> or die shows the depth of understanding of
> a Dr. IMnes in sharp contrast to the shallow
> and pedantic dullards who are hopelessly
> trapped in their simplistic, black/white
> "thinking" (or rather, aping) patterns. It is
> unfortunate that the *one time* that Dr.
> IMnes is not just completely and utterly
> wrong, his critics choose to ceaselessly
> attack him in their blind-pedant style.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>




   
Date: 10 Sep 2008 17:28:22
From:
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift


Chess One wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]m...
>
>
> Why don't you crawl back into your silo and gnaw on some roughage,
> Greg? (Just treating with the same courtesy you extend to others.) If
> you don't like the definitions of "Old English" or "dead language,"
> complain to the dictionary. If you have a degree in linguistics, they
> might even read it. Though not if you're still using crayon. What a
> turkey.
>
> --
>
> Poor Greg!
>
> He doesn't even like me!
>
> But here plain logic and also a bit of application is terminated by
> fierce-John, who mentions shit himself, and who also will not admit a simple
> logical preposition:
>
> that to use four words of a 'dead' language in order to propose the
> language dead, is not anything to fool a 12 year old
>
> Although it might stun the intellectual wind out of them a moment!
>
> That is the rather amusing conceit here - but look, big chess news is
> looming, and I will break it in a few days, then we'll see who is brave
> enough to mouth-off and deny stuff, and where spurious silly analogies just
> won't cut it.
>
> Phil Innes


If the presence of loan-words from no-longer-spoken languages means
that such languages are "not dead," then you are going to have to
argue that Old Norse ("niggardly,"), Latin ("regal," "imperial"), and
Classical Greek ("mausoleum," "ecumenical") are living languages. You
can certainly use the term that way, but I'm afraid you won't be
speaking the same ... language ... as the rest of us.


    
Date: 11 Sep 2008 13:48:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]m...
>>
>>
>> Why don't you crawl back into your silo and gnaw on some roughage,
>> Greg? (Just treating with the same courtesy you extend to others.) If
>> you don't like the definitions of "Old English" or "dead language,"
>> complain to the dictionary. If you have a degree in linguistics, they
>> might even read it. Though not if you're still using crayon. What a
>> turkey.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Poor Greg!
>>
>> He doesn't even like me!
>>
>> But here plain logic and also a bit of application is terminated by
>> fierce-John, who mentions shit himself, and who also will not admit a
>> simple
>> logical preposition:
>>
>> that to use four words of a 'dead' language in order to propose the
>> language dead, is not anything to fool a 12 year old
>>
>> Although it might stun the intellectual wind out of them a moment!
>>
>> That is the rather amusing conceit here - but look, big chess news is
>> looming, and I will break it in a few days, then we'll see who is brave
>> enough to mouth-off and deny stuff, and where spurious silly analogies
>> just
>> won't cut it.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
>
> If the presence of loan-words from no-longer-spoken languages means
> that such languages are "not dead," then you are going to have to
> argue that Old Norse ("niggardly,"), Latin ("regal," "imperial"), and
> Classical Greek ("mausoleum," "ecumenical") are living languages.

That is not quite so, Sir, and if I may be allowed to argue my own point,
rather than yours, it is the language borrowed into which is the thing
not-dead, even though it includes loan-words. Can you perceive for yourself
this differentiation, the one I in in fact made, or shall I explicate it for
you?

> You
> can certainly use the term that way, but I'm afraid you won't be
> speaking the same ... language ... as the rest of us.

The 'term' being 'dead'. The rest of you use it in some way Anglo Saxons,
Webster, Halliwell, the OED, myself and all other English speakers do not?


BTW, your word term 'term' is Anglo Norman, a loan word [via Old French
terme, L. terminus, and yet previously Gr. terma, termon, -Mod use, first
elucidation by Bacon "curruption is a reciprocal to generation, and they two
are as natures two terms, or boundaries] but your word 'afraid' is Anglo
Saxon, from AFERE; to make afraid

Ye* have with yow good engynes
Swilke knowe but few Sarezynes ;
A mangenel thou doo arere,
And soo thou schalt hem wel afere.

//Richard, Coer de Lion, 4104.

AFERID: afraid. [A. Sax]

Ha ! cowarde herte of love unlerid,
Whereof arte thous so sore aferid.

//Gower. Ms Soc Antiq. 134 f. 107

AFFERE; afraid [A. Sax]

yytte sche that is aferre lette her flee

//Ritson's Ancient Songs, p. 77

AFERT: afraid [A. Sax]

So gryslich thei were wrought,
Uche of hem a swerd brought,
And mad hire afert so sore.

//The Kyng of Tars, 411

--


The mester affe to wynne theem mede.

//Ritson's Ancient Songs 1. 47.

Phil Innes

*Awful corrupted repetition of a mispercieved lower case /thorn/ character,
pronounced as either very soft g, but vastly more commonly as 'th'. The
lower case signal looked like a modern lower case 'z' [though not in this
font!] and was thus rendered by certain influential printers as a 'y', hence
'ye'; a sound no one ever uttered, preferring 'the', as do we.





   
Date: 03 Aug 2008 06:04:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Aug 1, 12:12 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 11:50 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > **You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as
> > bent as
> > a $9 bill.
>
> > ---
>
> > I'm not sure what he is meaning to say, but I have to give Phil credit
> > for an amusing phrase here. In case anybody doesn't get it, this is a
> > twist on the phrase queer as a $3 bill, using the British substitution
> > of bent for queer in the meaning of homosexual. The juxtaposition with
> > the notion of bending a bill makes the phrase delightfully absurd.
>
> > **But your supposition again, your absurdity! Your trope, and your
> > association! Why associatiate this with a homosexual referernce? That I
> > think is what you put into my comment - and entirely your own association.
>
> Phil, I think you misunderstand. I thought you were making some
> wordplay which was actually clever here, substituting for the phrase
> "queer as a $3 bill" to make it more amusing. I never thought that you
> were calling me a homosexual, but changing queer to bent seemed to me
> to imply bringing in a pun which happerns to be based on the different
> meanings of queer as a bit of fun. I was not taking offense in any
> way. I still don't understand any connection between this thread and
> chess, much less my chess history column. I will gladly take back my
> compliment. I do not regard comments like this as being on the content
> of your post. I think the content, such as it is, is about the Old
> English is dead phrase as evidence of Neil's great ignorance, and I am
> happy to leave your own response to it for readers to judge who is
> being rational.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> > I will go back to my policy of not commenting on Phil's content;
>
> > **Well, commenting on not commenting for the tenth time? ROFL!! Your
> > not-commentaries are the most arrogant empty nonsense seen in any thread
> > here for an age - you omit content entirely [admitting you know none] and
> > logic, always 'not talking' on topic about the issue of Old English is Dead
> > being an absurd sentence.
>
> > if
> > any of his supporters think any of it makes sense, they can post
> > coherent versions and I will be happy to respond to them.
>
> > **Don't write such fatuous nonsense Spinrad - You declare you can have a
> > conversation, then contribute nothing to it, then rubbish me. See below! Big
> > Law Suit! Gettit yet? Look:-
>
> > "You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
> > Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him to
> > resign."
>
> > That is /your/ level of both logic and content orientation. ie NONE. That
> > you should represent yourself as being able to do either is fatuous. You
> > have done nothing but abuse public speech here, so take your own advice and
> > fuck off, and try to keep your self-satisfied amusements at the expense of
> > others and facts, for those who only think of 'bent' as you do.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > ---------
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
>
> > > Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him to resign.
> > > !!!!
>
> > > **When challenged to the logic of that.... zzz But maybe it says something
> > > on Wikipedia about that too, since at least that would save you thinking
> > > for
> > > yourself.
>
> > > **PhilInnes
>
> > > ---------------
>
> > > JerrySpinrad
>
> > > > > :))
>
> > > > > PhilInnes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

The latest on Innes Old English Insanity:

Tom Veal:
> Is "sophists prattle idiotically" Greek? If not, why not? Every one of
> those words is derived from that language.

Dr. Peter Groves:
By Innes' "reasoning" -- or prattling -- this is undoubtedly Greek;
but,
then again, just about everything he writes is Greek to me.

Dr. David Webb:

His version of New Testament Greek promises to be most amusing: "In
the beginning was the Lego, and the Lego was with God, and the Lego
was God," etc.



   
Date: 02 Aug 2008 18:35:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift
On Aug 2, 8:30=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> Can you believe that there are lunatics on chess newsgroups who
> actually believe that there is an opening called the KING's ganbit????
> Anyone with half a brain can realize that it is impossible to gambit a
> king in a legal game of chess!

Ah, but have you forgotten about Sanny
and his chess variant, wherein the King
can indeed be sacrificed?

And of course there are numerous
famous "master" games in which one
player effectively traded his King and
half an army for (usually) the opponent's
Queen. See for example, the games
of Mr. Reti, where he set up for a so-
called "windmill" and the poor duffers
went for it, time and again.

And then there is scholastic chess,
where illegal moves are something of
an art form; the King sacrifice being,
of course, the ultimate expression of
contraantidisestablishmentarianism.


> Yet these so-called experts, who define
> a gambit one way in their books, casually refer to a king's gambit.

I'm not sure who named those openings;
perhaps they were no "experts", but rank
duffers who did not quite understand the
English language.


> Think for yourself! It is a logical absurdity, and anyone who uses the
> term should be ridiculed for it even in dicussions having nothing to
> do with chess!

You misspelled "aburdity" in your
dicussion of logic above. But the real
problem is that you don't really
understand logic, which explains why
you so often resort to dragging in
supposed "experts" to bolster your
/authority arguments/. Methinks that
logic and reason trump the mere
opinions of random "experts", and the
more so when the "expert" is cajoled
or tricked or led like a horse, as is
typical of those who habitually rely
upon them for support. Sadly, this
includes not only knowitalls like
yourself, but folks like nearly-an-IM
Innes. In fact, you are more like him
that you know.


-- help bot


   
Date: 02 Aug 2008 05:30:52
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift
On Aug 1, 9:06=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 9:08=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Look, raisin brain, go to this Web site
> > > and try to find the language section:
>
> > > =A0 =A0www.thegreatcourses.com
>
> > > =A0 Now, if you somehow manage to find
> > > the ivy-league scholar's course on the
> > > English language (which is doubtful, IMO),
> > > you will see that "English" is treated
> > > (*though not defined*) as the whole
> > > shebang, including old, middle and
> > > modern English. =A0Hence, an evolving
> > > language (not a "dead" one). =A0
>
> =A0 What did I tell you? =A0You were not even
> able to find the information you /claimed/
> to seek, even *with instructions*. =A0 I like
> this site:
>
> =A0www.thegreatcourses.com
>
> ...because they claim to be the creme de
> la creme de la creme of ivy-leaguers (which
> is like having all of Nick Bourbaki's old pals
> in one convenient, accessible spot on the
> Web, except that they don't in fact all agree
> on everything).
>
> =A0 Some ideas which may interest those
> who can *reason* (not raisin) include the
> contradictions of various professors in
> their course descriptions. =A0For instance, in
> the field of History, one chap insists that
> the single greatest contribution of the
> ancients was monotheism, while another
> fails to even mention that in his detailed
> discussion of the same period (yow!),
> listing agriculture in its stead. =A0But ask
> the philosophers and they will say it is
> something else again... .
>
> =A0 Anyhow, you can't be blamed for
> fearing you may discover a truth that
> doesn't neatly fit your preconceptions;
> lots of folks are cowards in that way.
> You are not alone, Raisin Bran! =A0(If
> anything, you may feel very at home
> here in rgc.)
>
> =A0 Go on, take a chance-- click the link
> and read about what the best minds
> these ivy-leaguers have to offer have
> to say about it. =A0See how their chosen
> "expert" casually treats the term
> "English" as inclusive of both old and
> new, just like nearly-an-IM Innes likes
> to do. =A0Be brave, be bold, be daring (be
> like that guy Bobby Fischer idolized,
> whats-his-name, the swashbuckler
> actor). =A0Or just be yourself, a wimp.
>
> =A0-- help bot

Can you believe that there are lunatics on chess newsgroups who
actually believe that there is an opening called the KING's ganbit????
Anyone with half a brain can realize that it is impossible to gambit a
king in a legal game of chess! Yet these so-called experts, who define
a gambit one way in their books, casually refer to a king's gambit.

Think for yourself! It is a logical absurdity, and anyone who uses the
term should be ridiculed for it even in dicussions having nothing to
do with chess!

Jerry Spinrad


   
Date: 01 Aug 2008 23:48:49
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift
On Aug 1, 6:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> This is really one of the silliest threads I've ever seen, and that's
> saying a lot.Dictionary definitions:
>
> Old English n.
> The English language from the middle of the 5th to the beginning of
> the 12th century. Also called Anglo-Saxon.
>
> dead language n.
> A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native
> language by a speech community.
>
> Find me a live native speaker of Old English and we'll talk. Until
> then, case closed.

I agree. However, since P Innes seems fixated on flaunting his idiocy,
here's a short history of his nuttery on the subject.

Back in 2003, during the time P Innes was absent from the newsgroups -
a period of time that began shortly after his ISP informed me they
were going to talk to him about some of his postings - a woman on the
Shakespeare newsgroup HLAS posted some nonsense about Shakespeare of
Stratford not being able to write the canon because his dialect didn't
match that displayed in the canonical works. Among the gems of
nuttery she posted, this one stood out:
"O[ld] E[nglish] was still spoken in some shires until the 1800s..."

A year later, the subject came up again, and P Innes boldly stepped
into the fray:

****************
Not to interrupt any obsessional observances, but what for example is
objectionable about this first statement?

May we take "Old English" to mean Anglo Norman, rather than refer to
the
more singular use on the island of a pan-British language which we
refer to
as "Anglo Saxon"?

In either case I would not understand the objection, except that
certainly
both languages did not /cease/ to be in use after 1800.

Phil Innes
*************
And responses:
**************
Dr. Peter Groves, Monash University, Australia:
> May we take "Old English" to mean Anglo Norman,

Not if we don't wish to make complete fools of ourselves.
***************
Innes:
> > >>except that certainly
> > >>both languages did not /cease/ to be in use after 1800.

John Kennedy:
> > Heh-heh! You missed that one. Even Law French was pretty much dead by
> > 1800 (beyond the minor detritus still seen today), but Anglo Saxon? Or
> > does he simply have a very queer definition of when a language is "in
> use"?

Innes:
> Hello John!

> You are not inviting a discussion, but laughing along with the gallery.

> You do not say for example, how many words in use in 1800 are unaltered
> anglo-saxon. Why should you?

Me:
Yes, why should he? It's not relevent to the point. If I were to say
Phil
was in zugzwang, that doesn't mean I speak German, it means a German
word
has been adopted into English (or British, as Philsy might say).
************
Innes:
> Peter, since my question is first to address what 'OE' is under
discussion,
> and secondly to ask therefore, why Elizabeth thinks it ended circa 1800,
and
> David that it did not extend to 1800, then had you not better write
> something more pertinent, yourself?

Dr. Peter Groves:
Phil, you can discover the meaning of the term 'Old English' from a
desk
dictionary (I realise you don't understand *why* scholars apply it as
they
do, but this is irrelevant). I am not required to explain your
ignorance,
or Elizabeth's, and if you both kept it decently concealed no-one
would
notice it. When you parade it in front of us, however, it is bound to
cause
a little amusement. As Swift put it,

He spar'd a Hump or Crooked Nose,
Whose Owners set not up for Beaux.
*************

Well, these responses, and the fact there was a woman responsible for
the initial nuttery, sent Innes into overdrive. It's rare he gets to
indulge simultaneously in his twin dreams of showing up his
intellectual betters and defend a woman who would never have anything
to do with him, and so P Innes has been fighting what he thinks as the
good fight for his crackpot definition of Old English as a living
language for the past four years.




    
Date: 05 Aug 2008 06:44:19
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Aug 1, 6:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> This is really one of the silliest threads I've ever seen, and that's
>> saying a lot.Dictionary definitions:
>>
>> Old English n.
>> The English language from the middle of the 5th to the beginning of
>> the 12th century. Also called Anglo-Saxon.
>>
>> dead language n.
>> A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native
>> language by a speech community.
>>
>> Find me a live native speaker of Old English and we'll talk. Until
>> then, case closed.

What a confusion of idiocies - Brennen himself wrote 4 words of old
English - and we must presume that he is live.

> I agree. However, since P Innes seems fixated on flaunting his idiocy,
> here's a short history of his nuttery on the subject.
>
> Back in 2003, during the time P Innes was absent from the newsgroups -
> a period of time that began shortly after his ISP informed me they
> were going to talk to him about some of his postings -

Well, let's tell the truth! Someone who followed Brennen's posts, and only
his posts abused my family.

- a woman on the
> Shakespeare newsgroup HLAS posted some nonsense about Shakespeare of
> Stratford not being able to write the canon because his dialect didn't
> match that displayed in the canonical works.

Its true that no particular inclusions of West Midlands dilalect words is
represented in the Work - nor even in the early poems. This of course does
not disqualify Shagsper from authorship - Elizabeth Weir's point was, by the
same token, neither does it particularly indicate him as author.

> Among the gems of
> nuttery she posted, this one stood out:
> "O[ld] E[nglish] was still spoken in some shires until the 1800s..."

And there you have it.

> A year later,

BUT HERE'S THE TRUTH

Not so fast! After HUNDREDS of abusive posts by the very people whose
opinions Brennen imports here about this serious Bacon researcher - without
their EVER displaying any knowlege of the extancy of OE in the C17th or even
the C21st - I did challenge the main abuser [a mathematician, not a
linguist] about his obsession after this had been going on for a year [!],
and indeed, why he was beating on this women in public, as leader of the
little gang which included Groves and Brennen?

What is notable about what Brennen writes above is the absense of the real
context - he hides the majority of the correspondence because it was an
**abuse fest**

What is notable below is a similar lack of engagement in knowledge - and
Brennen and co do not stoop to actually demonstrating any knowledge
whatever, and instead make themselves above that sort of thing!

WHO'S OBSESSION?

Similarly, Brennen quite rightly notes that the cause celebre was a woman -
but he makes this my obsession not his own, even though I said nothing for a
year, and in fact he was already abusing this particular individual before I
ever wrote anything in the HLAS newsgroup.

Furthermore, despite Brennen's little speculations, she did write to me
since she is a serious Bacon reasearcher, and we discussed, I think, Bacon's
cypher wheel and where available images of it can be obtained. Our
discussion was not particularly speculatory and instead revolved round the
founder of modern scientific philosophy, which is to observe, rather than
proceed by received idea.

What she said in public is that she wondered what these abuseniks were doing
under their desks when they wrote their stuff!?

The Herman Goering Division of the Humanities group do not like me because I
bother to actually substantiate my opinions with writing, and because I
caught them out flagrantly getting off on their little campaign - and shamed
them. They seemed to pick on her because she had differing ideas than they
did, and because she was not given to returning the abuse - and so became an
easy target.

What any of these jokers know about English language is unknown! Why they
don't tell the real story of their little club is known, and I suggest that
what I have written here is the basis of it.

Phil Innes


> the subject came up again, and P Innes boldly stepped
> into the fray:
>
> ****************
> Not to interrupt any obsessional observances, but what for example is
> objectionable about this first statement?
>
> May we take "Old English" to mean Anglo Norman, rather than refer to
> the
> more singular use on the island of a pan-British language which we
> refer to
> as "Anglo Saxon"?
>
> In either case I would not understand the objection, except that
> certainly
> both languages did not /cease/ to be in use after 1800.
>
> Phil Innes
> *************
> And responses:
> **************
> Dr. Peter Groves, Monash University, Australia:
>> May we take "Old English" to mean Anglo Norman,
>
> Not if we don't wish to make complete fools of ourselves.
> ***************
> Innes:
>> > >>except that certainly
>> > >>both languages did not /cease/ to be in use after 1800.
>
> John Kennedy:
>> > Heh-heh! You missed that one. Even Law French was pretty much dead by
>> > 1800 (beyond the minor detritus still seen today), but Anglo Saxon? Or
>> > does he simply have a very queer definition of when a language is "in
>> use"?
>
> Innes:
>> Hello John!
>
>> You are not inviting a discussion, but laughing along with the gallery.
>
>> You do not say for example, how many words in use in 1800 are unaltered
>> anglo-saxon. Why should you?
>
> Me:
> Yes, why should he? It's not relevent to the point. If I were to say
> Phil
> was in zugzwang, that doesn't mean I speak German, it means a German
> word
> has been adopted into English (or British, as Philsy might say).
> ************
> Innes:
>> Peter, since my question is first to address what 'OE' is under
> discussion,
>> and secondly to ask therefore, why Elizabeth thinks it ended circa 1800,
> and
>> David that it did not extend to 1800, then had you not better write
>> something more pertinent, yourself?
>
> Dr. Peter Groves:
> Phil, you can discover the meaning of the term 'Old English' from a
> desk
> dictionary (I realise you don't understand *why* scholars apply it as
> they
> do, but this is irrelevant). I am not required to explain your
> ignorance,
> or Elizabeth's, and if you both kept it decently concealed no-one
> would
> notice it. When you parade it in front of us, however, it is bound to
> cause
> a little amusement. As Swift put it,
>
> He spar'd a Hump or Crooked Nose,
> Whose Owners set not up for Beaux.
> *************
>
> Well, these responses, and the fact there was a woman responsible for
> the initial nuttery, sent Innes into overdrive. It's rare he gets to
> indulge simultaneously in his twin dreams of showing up his
> intellectual betters and defend a woman who would never have anything
> to do with him, and so P Innes has been fighting what he thinks as the
> good fight for his crackpot definition of Old English as a living
> language for the past four years.
>
>




   
Date: 01 Aug 2008 19:06:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift
On Aug 1, 9:08=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> > =A0 Look, raisin brain, go to this Web site
> > and try to find the language section:
>
> > =A0 =A0www.thegreatcourses.com
>
> > =A0 Now, if you somehow manage to find
> > the ivy-league scholar's course on the
> > English language (which is doubtful, IMO),
> > you will see that "English" is treated
> > (*though not defined*) as the whole
> > shebang, including old, middle and
> > modern English. =A0Hence, an evolving
> > language (not a "dead" one). =A0


What did I tell you? You were not even
able to find the information you /claimed/
to seek, even *with instructions*. I like
this site:

www.thegreatcourses.com

=2E..because they claim to be the creme de
la creme de la creme of ivy-leaguers (which
is like having all of Nick Bourbaki's old pals
in one convenient, accessible spot on the
Web, except that they don't in fact all agree
on everything).

Some ideas which may interest those
who can *reason* (not raisin) include the
contradictions of various professors in
their course descriptions. For instance, in
the field of History, one chap insists that
the single greatest contribution of the
ancients was monotheism, while another
fails to even mention that in his detailed
discussion of the same period (yow!),
listing agriculture in its stead. But ask
the philosophers and they will say it is
something else again... .

Anyhow, you can't be blamed for
fearing you may discover a truth that
doesn't neatly fit your preconceptions;
lots of folks are cowards in that way.
You are not alone, Raisin Bran! (If
anything, you may feel very at home
here in rgc.)

Go on, take a chance-- click the link
and read about what the best minds
these ivy-leaguers have to offer have
to say about it. See how their chosen
"expert" casually treats the term
"English" as inclusive of both old and
new, just like nearly-an-IM Innes likes
to do. Be brave, be bold, be daring (be
like that guy Bobby Fischer idolized,
whats-his-name, the swashbuckler
actor). Or just be yourself, a wimp.


-- help bot






   
Date: 01 Aug 2008 18:08:20
From:
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift


help bot wrote:
> On Aug 1, 7:58=EF=BF=BDpm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > This is really one of the silliest threads I've ever seen, and that's
> > saying a lot. Dictionary definitions:
>
> Wrong reference; try an encyclopedia or
> a college-level course description if you
> want the real scoop.
>
>
> > Old English n.
> > The English language from the middle of the 5th to the beginning of
> > the 12th century. Also called =EF=BF=BDAnglo-Saxon.
>
> > dead language n.
> > A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native
> > language by a speech community.
>
> That won't do any good here, as Dr. IMnes
> will describe how Latin has evolved into a
> bevy of modern languages, all of which are
> "learned as native languages by speech
> communities".
>
>
> > Find me a live native speaker of Old English and we'll talk. Until
> > then, case closed.
>
> Mind closed, you mean. LOL
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Look, raisin brain, go to this Web site
> and try to find the language section:
>
> www.thegreatcourses.com
>
> Now, if you somehow manage to find
> the ivy-league scholar's course on the
> English language (which is doubtful, IMO),
> you will see that "English" is treated
> (*though not defined*) as the whole
> shebang, including old, middle and
> modern English. Hence, an evolving
> language (not a "dead" one). You are
> probably one of those nincompoops
> who are amazed when on TV they
> revive a "dead" patient, after some
> fool doctor has spoken some irrelevant
> words over him and checked his watch.
> Some people are just beyond saving
> (from their own stupidity)... .
>
>
> -- help bot


Why don't you crawl back into your silo and gnaw on some roughage,
Greg? (Just treating with the same courtesy you extend to others.) If
you don't like the definitions of "Old English" or "dead language,"
complain to the dictionary. If you have a degree in linguistics, they
might even read it. Though not if you're still using crayon. What a
turkey.


    
Date: 05 Aug 2008 14:39:45
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...


Why don't you crawl back into your silo and gnaw on some roughage,
Greg? (Just treating with the same courtesy you extend to others.) If
you don't like the definitions of "Old English" or "dead language,"
complain to the dictionary. If you have a degree in linguistics, they
might even read it. Though not if you're still using crayon. What a
turkey.

--

Poor Greg!

He doesn't even like me!

But here plain logic and also a bit of application is terminated by
fierce-John, who mentions shit himself, and who also will not admit a simple
logical preposition:

that to use four words of a 'dead' language in order to propose the
language dead, is not anything to fool a 12 year old

Although it might stun the intellectual wind out of them a moment!

That is the rather amusing conceit here - but look, big chess news is
looming, and I will break it in a few days, then we'll see who is brave
enough to mouth-off and deny stuff, and where spurious silly analogies just
won't cut it.

Phil Innes




   
Date: 01 Aug 2008 17:14:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift
On Aug 1, 7:58=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> This is really one of the silliest threads I've ever seen, and that's
> saying a lot. Dictionary definitions:

Wrong reference; try an encyclopedia or
a college-level course description if you
want the real scoop.


> Old English n.
> The English language from the middle of the 5th to the beginning of
> the 12th century. Also called =A0Anglo-Saxon.

> dead language n.
> A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native
> language by a speech community.

That won't do any good here, as Dr. IMnes
will describe how Latin has evolved into a
bevy of modern languages, all of which are
"learned as native languages by speech
communities".


> Find me a live native speaker of Old English and we'll talk. Until
> then, case closed.

Mind closed, you mean. LOL

-----------------------------------------------------------

Look, raisin brain, go to this Web site
and try to find the language section:

www.thegreatcourses.com

Now, if you somehow manage to find
the ivy-league scholar's course on the
English language (which is doubtful, IMO),
you will see that "English" is treated
(*though not defined*) as the whole
shebang, including old, middle and
modern English. Hence, an evolving
language (not a "dead" one). You are
probably one of those nincompoops
who are amazed when on TV they
revive a "dead" patient, after some
fool doctor has spoken some irrelevant
words over him and checked his watch.
Some people are just beyond saving
(from their own stupidity)... .


-- help bot









   
Date: 01 Aug 2008 16:58:40
From:
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift

This is really one of the silliest threads I've ever seen, and that's
saying a lot.Dictionary definitions:


Old English n.
The English language from the middle of the 5th to the beginning of
the 12th century. Also called Anglo-Saxon.

dead language n.
A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native
language by a speech community.


Find me a live native speaker of Old English and we'll talk. Until
then, case closed.


   
Date: 02 Aug 2008 08:09:13
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
help bot wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 10:00 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There isn't much else you can do. He'll argue the sky is green till
> > his teeth fall out.
>
> If you would simply don amber-colored
> sunglasses, you would see that the sky
> *is* green.

No need for raybans - simply board a flight to Moscow where it will be
observed the sky is frequently purple, as well as black, white, grey,
pink, orange, yellow & yes, green. Haven't noticed polka-dot yet, but
who knows? Them's that insist the sky is blue need to get out more..


> The glasses will also help by
> protecting your delicate eyes from
> harmful UV rays, BTW. Another cool
> way to see that the sky is green is to
> move away from the Earth at a certain
> velocity, calculated to shift the entire
> color spectrum one notch "warmer", so
> that blue becomes green and orange
> becomes red. (This is very tricky, since
> you have to avoid wormholes and other
> problems like asteroid belts; also, have
> you seen the price of next-gen. rocket
> fuel lately?)
>
> -- help bot


   
Date: 01 Aug 2008 12:56:21
From: Javert
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift
On Aug 1, 3:50=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 12:12=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 11:50=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[email protected].=
..
> > > On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > =A0**You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are a=
s
> > > bent as
> > > =A0a $9 bill.
>
> > > ---
>
> > > I'm not sure what he is meaning to say, but I have to give Phil credi=
t
> > > for an amusing phrase here. In case anybody doesn't get it, this is a
> > > twist on the phrase queer as a $3 bill, using the British substitutio=
n
> > > of bent for queer in the meaning of homosexual. The juxtaposition wit=
h
> > > the notion of bending a bill makes the phrase delightfully absurd.
>
> > > **But your supposition again, your absurdity! Your trope, and your
> > > association! Why associatiate this with a homosexual referernce? That=
I
> > > think is what you put into my comment - and entirely your own associa=
tion.
>
> > Phil, I think you misunderstand. I thought you were making some
> > wordplay which was actually clever here, substituting for the phrase
> > "queer as a $3 bill" to make it more amusing. I never thought that you
> > were calling me a homosexual, but changing queer to bent seemed to me
> > to imply bringing in a pun which happerns to be based on the different
> > meanings of queer as a bit of fun. =A0I was not taking offense in any
> > way. I still don't understand any connection between this thread and
> > chess, much less my chess history column. I will gladly take back my
> > compliment. I do not regard comments like this as being on the content
> > of your post. I think the content, such as it is, is about the Old
> > English is dead phrase as evidence of Neil's great ignorance, and I am
> > happy to leave your own response to it for readers to judge who is
> > being rational.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > I will go back to my policy of not commenting on Phil's content;
>
> > > **Well, commenting on not commenting for the tenth time? ROFL!! Your
> > > not-commentaries are the most arrogant empty nonsense seen in any thr=
ead
> > > here for an age - you omit content entirely [admitting you know none]=
and
> > > logic, always 'not talking' on topic about the issue of Old English i=
s Dead
> > > being an absurd sentence.
>
> > > =A0if
> > > any of his supporters think any of it makes sense, they can post
> > > coherent versions and I will be happy to respond to them.
>
> > > **Don't write such fatuous nonsense Spinrad - You declare you can hav=
e a
> > > conversation, then contribute nothing to it, then rubbish me. See bel=
ow! Big
> > > Law Suit! Gettit yet? Look:-
>
> > > =A0 =A0 "You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bi=
ll
> > > =A0 =A0 Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him=
to
> > > resign."
>
> > > That is /your/ level of both logic and content orientation. ie NONE. =
That
> > > you should represent yourself as being able to do either is fatuous. =
You
> > > have done nothing but abuse public speech here, so take your own advi=
ce and
> > > fuck off, and try to keep your self-satisfied amusements at the expen=
se of
> > > others and facts, for those who only think of 'bent' as you do.
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > > ---------
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
>
> > > > Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him to re=
sign.
> > > > !!!!
>
> > > > **When challenged to the logic of that.... zzz But maybe it says so=
mething
> > > > on Wikipedia about that too, since at least that would save you thi=
nking
> > > > for
> > > > yourself.
>
> > > > **PhilInnes
>
> > > > ---------------
>
> > > > JerrySpinrad
>
> > > > > > :))
>
> > > > > > PhilInnes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thread drift. This started about the question of Ed Trice being sued
> by Edward Labate . Mr. Trice may now face the task of defending
> himself in a court of law .
> You never know what may turn up.

I doubt the court will discuss, or care much, if Olde English is
dead.

I hope Court TV covers it, it holds the potential for great
entertainment.


   
Date: 01 Aug 2008 12:50:48
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead : thread drift
On Aug 1, 12:12=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 11:50=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > =A0**You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as
> > bent as
> > =A0a $9 bill.
>
> > ---
>
> > I'm not sure what he is meaning to say, but I have to give Phil credit
> > for an amusing phrase here. In case anybody doesn't get it, this is a
> > twist on the phrase queer as a $3 bill, using the British substitution
> > of bent for queer in the meaning of homosexual. The juxtaposition with
> > the notion of bending a bill makes the phrase delightfully absurd.
>
> > **But your supposition again, your absurdity! Your trope, and your
> > association! Why associatiate this with a homosexual referernce? That I
> > think is what you put into my comment - and entirely your own associati=
on.
>
> Phil, I think you misunderstand. I thought you were making some
> wordplay which was actually clever here, substituting for the phrase
> "queer as a $3 bill" to make it more amusing. I never thought that you
> were calling me a homosexual, but changing queer to bent seemed to me
> to imply bringing in a pun which happerns to be based on the different
> meanings of queer as a bit of fun. =A0I was not taking offense in any
> way. I still don't understand any connection between this thread and
> chess, much less my chess history column. I will gladly take back my
> compliment. I do not regard comments like this as being on the content
> of your post. I think the content, such as it is, is about the Old
> English is dead phrase as evidence of Neil's great ignorance, and I am
> happy to leave your own response to it for readers to judge who is
> being rational.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
>
>
> > I will go back to my policy of not commenting on Phil's content;
>
> > **Well, commenting on not commenting for the tenth time? ROFL!! Your
> > not-commentaries are the most arrogant empty nonsense seen in any threa=
d
> > here for an age - you omit content entirely [admitting you know none] a=
nd
> > logic, always 'not talking' on topic about the issue of Old English is =
Dead
> > being an absurd sentence.
>
> > =A0if
> > any of his supporters think any of it makes sense, they can post
> > coherent versions and I will be happy to respond to them.
>
> > **Don't write such fatuous nonsense Spinrad - You declare you can have =
a
> > conversation, then contribute nothing to it, then rubbish me. See below=
! Big
> > Law Suit! Gettit yet? Look:-
>
> > =A0 =A0 "You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
> > =A0 =A0 Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him t=
o
> > resign."
>
> > That is /your/ level of both logic and content orientation. ie NONE. Th=
at
> > you should represent yourself as being able to do either is fatuous. Yo=
u
> > have done nothing but abuse public speech here, so take your own advice=
and
> > fuck off, and try to keep your self-satisfied amusements at the expense=
of
> > others and facts, for those who only think of 'bent' as you do.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > ---------
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
>
> > > Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him to resi=
gn.
> > > !!!!
>
> > > **When challenged to the logic of that.... zzz But maybe it says some=
thing
> > > on Wikipedia about that too, since at least that would save you think=
ing
> > > for
> > > yourself.
>
> > > **PhilInnes
>
> > > ---------------
>
> > > JerrySpinrad
>
> > > > > :))
>
> > > > > PhilInnes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thread drift. This started about the question of Ed Trice being sued
by Edward Labate . Mr. Trice may now face the task of defending
himself in a court of law .
You never know what may turn up.


   
Date: 01 Aug 2008 10:12:00
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Aug 1, 11:50=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> =A0**You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as
> bent as
> =A0a $9 bill.
>
> ---
>
> I'm not sure what he is meaning to say, but I have to give Phil credit
> for an amusing phrase here. In case anybody doesn't get it, this is a
> twist on the phrase queer as a $3 bill, using the British substitution
> of bent for queer in the meaning of homosexual. The juxtaposition with
> the notion of bending a bill makes the phrase delightfully absurd.
>
> **But your supposition again, your absurdity! Your trope, and your
> association! Why associatiate this with a homosexual referernce? That I
> think is what you put into my comment - and entirely your own association=
.

Phil, I think you misunderstand. I thought you were making some
wordplay which was actually clever here, substituting for the phrase
"queer as a $3 bill" to make it more amusing. I never thought that you
were calling me a homosexual, but changing queer to bent seemed to me
to imply bringing in a pun which happerns to be based on the different
meanings of queer as a bit of fun. I was not taking offense in any
way. I still don't understand any connection between this thread and
chess, much less my chess history column. I will gladly take back my
compliment. I do not regard comments like this as being on the content
of your post. I think the content, such as it is, is about the Old
English is dead phrase as evidence of Neil's great ignorance, and I am
happy to leave your own response to it for readers to judge who is
being rational.

Jerry Spinrad
>
> I will go back to my policy of not commenting on Phil's content;
>
> **Well, commenting on not commenting for the tenth time? ROFL!! Your
> not-commentaries are the most arrogant empty nonsense seen in any thread
> here for an age - you omit content entirely [admitting you know none] and
> logic, always 'not talking' on topic about the issue of Old English is De=
ad
> being an absurd sentence.
>
> =A0if
> any of his supporters think any of it makes sense, they can post
> coherent versions and I will be happy to respond to them.
>
> **Don't write such fatuous nonsense Spinrad - You declare you can have a
> conversation, then contribute nothing to it, then rubbish me. See below! =
Big
> Law Suit! Gettit yet? Look:-
>
> =A0 =A0 "You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
> =A0 =A0 Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him to
> resign."
>
> That is /your/ level of both logic and content orientation. ie NONE. That
> you should represent yourself as being able to do either is fatuous. You
> have done nothing but abuse public speech here, so take your own advice a=
nd
> fuck off, and try to keep your self-satisfied amusements at the expense o=
f
> others and facts, for those who only think of 'bent' as you do.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> ---------
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
>
>
>
> > Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him to resign=
.
> > !!!!
>
> > **When challenged to the logic of that.... zzz But maybe it says someth=
ing
> > on Wikipedia about that too, since at least that would save you thinkin=
g
> > for
> > yourself.
>
> > **PhilInnes
>
> > ---------------
>
> > JerrySpinrad
>
> > > > :))
>
> > > > PhilInnes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



   
Date: 01 Aug 2008 17:40:14
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
[email protected] wrote:
.
> **You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as
> bent as
> a $9 bill. [PI]..

> I'm not sure what he is meaning to say, but I have to give Phil credit
> for an amusing phrase here. In case anybody doesn't get it, this is a
> twist on the phrase queer as a $3 bill, using the British substitution
> of bent for queer in the meaning of homosexual.

Well, yes & no. As far as I'm aware the words [bent] & [queer] are still
in common use irrespective of any association with the pink brigade
which sadly can't really be said of the jolly old [gay] word..

Phil's colloquial use of "bent" here, suggests [dodgy] [crookedness]
[something fishy] etc. - hth..

t.





> The juxtaposition with
> the notion of bending a bill makes the phrase delightfully absurd.
>
> I will go back to my policy of not commenting on Phil's content; if
> any of his supporters think any of it makes sense, they can post
> coherent versions and I will be happy to respond to them.
>
> Jerry Spinrad


    
Date: 01 Aug 2008 09:57:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead

"thumbody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected] wrote:
> .
>> **You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as
>> bent as
>> a $9 bill. [PI]..
>
>> I'm not sure what he is meaning to say, but I have to give Phil credit
>> for an amusing phrase here. In case anybody doesn't get it, this is a
>> twist on the phrase queer as a $3 bill, using the British substitution
>> of bent for queer in the meaning of homosexual.
>
> Well, yes & no. As far as I'm aware the words [bent] & [queer] are still
> in common use irrespective of any association with the pink brigade
> which sadly can't really be said of the jolly old [gay] word..

Its adapted to Murikan from 'bent as a nine-bob note.' Bent as euphemism for
homosexual appears to be US-use only. Amusingly while looking it up I came
upon BRAA, which is "an acclivity" [North].

BENT appears to have 8 old traditional meanings in English much in accord
with our current usage:
1) Ready [Weber]
2) a plain, a common, a moor. Willan says "high pastures for shelving
commons" and the general sense it is referencing the bending of grass in
such locations. Indeed, MS Lincs says

Appone a bent wothowt the borge
With scharpe arrowes he schote hym thurghe

3) The declivity of a hill [A. Sax]. Esotericists can wonder if this is the
meaning found in "Squyr of Lowe Degré, 65
4) Subject [Cov. Myst.] I believe this usage is yet current in England, at
least. To talk of someone and his bent, or someone's bent, is to reference
his hobby, preocuppation, and so on.
5) A chimney [North]
6) A long coarse grass, same as "bent-grass". Gerard also call a bundle of
it a 'bent'. See Salop. Antiq p. 324; Also Brit Bibl. i. 212
7) "Brows bent" ie, arched. See Dyce's nots to Skelton p. 146. Rom of the
Rose, 1217.
8) Form: shape - here is an interesting entry by Gower, the even more prolix
atavist contemporary of Chaucer;

My bente whiche that y now have
Tille I be take into my grave.

// Gower, MS Soc. Antiq 134 f. 50

I also note in passing that BENTLES are dry sandy pastures near the sea
covered chiefly by bent-grass. It is also interesting to look at the stem~
BEN, which I see is accorded "true ben" being the utmost stretch of moor [as
is a word from Exmoor.] This is not to confused with Ben (4) to be, being
the pres. pl. and part. pa. of the A. Sax verb.

Probably [ROFL] the key word of the most famous speech of all time utilising
the most used verb in the language, and quite fascinating to me is the
difference between the regular dialectical use of the word BE in England,
which is as regular in country speech now as it was in Anglo Saxon times!

ie;- "I be very hungry",

whereas the pre. tense of the written word is irregular in every case and in
everything except its participle, ie, am, are, is... Some flavor of that
still survives following a [North] use, as in "Be we apart," even unto the
Americas!

As for the Gay Gordons... whatever happened to them?

> Phil's colloquial use of "bent" here, suggests [dodgy] [crookedness]
> [something fishy] etc. - hth..
>
> t.
>
>
>> The juxtaposition with
>> the notion of bending a bill makes the phrase delightfully absurd.
>>
>> I will go back to my policy of not commenting on Phil's content;

Too late for that! More like having admitted to ...

a) knowing no content,
b) nor interest in logic,
c) accepting false authority in place of either
d) without suspecting that the 'authorities' were of the same ilk as our
nihilist
e) and admitting to not understanding why I should write about another of
that ilk by referencing objective facts, off-topic from chess to demonstrate
the means and the mores of certain people... Specifically without content or
logic, and as basis for abuse.

... Our Jerry Spinrad, ace chess historian, declares himself sense-free, and
runs away after getting in a gratuitous dig or two of his own [and that, I
remind fascinated readers, is why brown-nosing contentless drooling twits
share their fascinating opinions with us.]

Cordially! Phil Innes

> if
>> any of his supporters think any of it makes sense, they can post
>> coherent versions and I will be happy to respond to them.
>>
>> Jerry Spinrad




     
Date: 02 Aug 2008 22:03:28
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
Chess One wrote:
>
> "thumbody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > .
> >> **You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as
> >> bent as
> >> a $9 bill. [PI]..
> >
> >> I'm not sure what he is meaning to say, but I have to give Phil credit
> >> for an amusing phrase here. In case anybody doesn't get it, this is a
> >> twist on the phrase queer as a $3 bill, using the British substitution
> >> of bent for queer in the meaning of homosexual.
> >
> > Well, yes & no. As far as I'm aware the words [bent] & [queer] are still
> > in common use irrespective of any association with the pink brigade
> > which sadly can't really be said of the jolly old [gay] word..
>
> Its adapted to Murikan from 'bent as a nine-bob note.' Bent as euphemism for
> homosexual appears to be US-use only.

Don't think so. I've heard it used in the UK to refer to Arfa/Martha,
but more commonly to something dodgy if not downright criminal - bent as
a two-bob watch & just to keep up to date about as bent as a sub-prime
mortgage deal etc. ..

The Gay Gordons eh?..

Amalgamated with Seaforth & Camerons in 1994 to form The Highlanders -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gordon_Highlanders..

t.


> Amusingly while looking it up I came
> upon BRAA, which is "an acclivity" [North].
>
> BENT appears to have 8 old traditional meanings in English much in accord
> with our current usage:
> 1) Ready [Weber]
> 2) a plain, a common, a moor. Willan says "high pastures for shelving
> commons" and the general sense it is referencing the bending of grass in
> such locations. Indeed, MS Lincs says
>
> Appone a bent wothowt the borge
> With scharpe arrowes he schote hym thurghe
>
> 3) The declivity of a hill [A. Sax]. Esotericists can wonder if this is the
> meaning found in "Squyr of Lowe Degré, 65
> 4) Subject [Cov. Myst.] I believe this usage is yet current in England, at
> least. To talk of someone and his bent, or someone's bent, is to reference
> his hobby, preocuppation, and so on.
> 5) A chimney [North]
> 6) A long coarse grass, same as "bent-grass". Gerard also call a bundle of
> it a 'bent'. See Salop. Antiq p. 324; Also Brit Bibl. i. 212
> 7) "Brows bent" ie, arched. See Dyce's nots to Skelton p. 146. Rom of the
> Rose, 1217.
> 8) Form: shape - here is an interesting entry by Gower, the even more prolix
> atavist contemporary of Chaucer;
>
> My bente whiche that y now have
> Tille I be take into my grave.
>
> // Gower, MS Soc. Antiq 134 f. 50
>
> I also note in passing that BENTLES are dry sandy pastures near the sea
> covered chiefly by bent-grass. It is also interesting to look at the stem~
> BEN, which I see is accorded "true ben" being the utmost stretch of moor [as
> is a word from Exmoor.] This is not to confused with Ben (4) to be, being
> the pres. pl. and part. pa. of the A. Sax verb.
>
> Probably [ROFL] the key word of the most famous speech of all time utilising
> the most used verb in the language, and quite fascinating to me is the
> difference between the regular dialectical use of the word BE in England,
> which is as regular in country speech now as it was in Anglo Saxon times!
>
> ie;- "I be very hungry",
>
> whereas the pre. tense of the written word is irregular in every case and in
> everything except its participle, ie, am, are, is... Some flavor of that
> still survives following a [North] use, as in "Be we apart," even unto the
> Americas!
>
> As for the Gay Gordons... whatever happened to them?
>
> > Phil's colloquial use of "bent" here, suggests [dodgy] [crookedness]
> > [something fishy] etc. - hth..
> >
> > t.
> >
> >
> >> The juxtaposition with
> >> the notion of bending a bill makes the phrase delightfully absurd.
> >>
> >> I will go back to my policy of not commenting on Phil's content;
>
> Too late for that! More like having admitted to ...
>
> a) knowing no content,
> b) nor interest in logic,
> c) accepting false authority in place of either
> d) without suspecting that the 'authorities' were of the same ilk as our
> nihilist
> e) and admitting to not understanding why I should write about another of
> that ilk by referencing objective facts, off-topic from chess to demonstrate
> the means and the mores of certain people... Specifically without content or
> logic, and as basis for abuse.
>
> ... Our Jerry Spinrad, ace chess historian, declares himself sense-free, and
> runs away after getting in a gratuitous dig or two of his own [and that, I
> remind fascinated readers, is why brown-nosing contentless drooling twits
> share their fascinating opinions with us.]
>
> Cordially! Phil Innes
>
> > if
> >> any of his supporters think any of it makes sense, they can post
> >> coherent versions and I will be happy to respond to them.
> >>
> >> Jerry Spinrad


      
Date: 04 Aug 2008 16:13:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead

"thumbody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> "thumbody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> > .
>> >> **You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as
>> >> bent as
>> >> a $9 bill. [PI]..
>> >
>> >> I'm not sure what he is meaning to say, but I have to give Phil credit
>> >> for an amusing phrase here. In case anybody doesn't get it, this is a
>> >> twist on the phrase queer as a $3 bill, using the British substitution
>> >> of bent for queer in the meaning of homosexual.
>> >
>> > Well, yes & no. As far as I'm aware the words [bent] & [queer] are
>> > still
>> > in common use irrespective of any association with the pink brigade
>> > which sadly can't really be said of the jolly old [gay] word..
>>
>> Its adapted to Murikan from 'bent as a nine-bob note.' Bent as euphemism
>> for
>> homosexual appears to be US-use only.
>
> Don't think so. I've heard it used in the UK to refer to Arfa/Martha,
> but more commonly to something dodgy if not downright criminal

**Yer, that's Lunnin, init. Coppers which are bent, unlike the 'ard workin
criminal clarses. Dixon of Dock Green wasna bent! I wonder if he was the
first cop on english TV? I can't quite remember the theme music - whistling?

> - bent as
> a two-bob watch & just to keep up to date about as bent as a sub-prime
> mortgage deal etc. ..
>
> The Gay Gordons eh?..
>
> Amalgamated with Seaforth & Camerons in 1994 to form The Highlanders -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gordon_Highlanders..

ROFL - Even Wiki avoids the direct reference. But loss-of-Kilt is a serious
thing!

In 1809 they lost their kilt and their Highland identity but the title
Stirlingshire was introduced in 1862. The 92nd were raised as the 100th
Highlanders by the Duke of Gordon in 1794 being renumbered 92nd in 1798.
Their early service included the Low Countries and Egypt, followed by
Corunna, the Peninsula, Waterloo, Afghanistan and South Africa.
The Gordons raised 21 battalions in the First World War, serving on the
Western Front and in Italy and winning 65 battle honours. The regiment lost
1,000 officers and 28,000 men during the war.

Therefore I searched on gay Gordons, and Wiki came up with:-

The Gay Gordons is a nickname of The Gordon Highlanders, a former infantry
regiment of the British army. It is also applied to:
a.. Gay Gordons (solitaire), a form of the card game Solitaire (or
Patience)
b.. Gay Gordons (dance), a popular ceilidh dance
c.. The Gay Gordons, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Scottish
country dance club based in London
Origin of the term is elusive, but at least here is the dance:-

Bars Description
1-2 Right hands joined over lady's shoulder (man's arm behind her
back) and left hands joined in front, walk forward for four steps, starting
on the right foot.
3-4 Still moving in the same direction, and without letting go, pivot
on the spot (so left hand is behind lady and right hand is in front) and
take four steps backwards.
5-8 Repeat in the opposite direction.
9-12 Drop left hands, raise right hands above lady's head. Lady pivots
on the spot. (The man may set).
13-16 Joining hands in ballroom hold, polka round the room.


Cordially, Phil



> t.
>
>
>> Amusingly while looking it up I came
>> upon BRAA, which is "an acclivity" [North].
>>
>> BENT appears to have 8 old traditional meanings in English much in accord
>> with our current usage:
>> 1) Ready [Weber]
>> 2) a plain, a common, a moor. Willan says "high pastures for shelving
>> commons" and the general sense it is referencing the bending of grass in
>> such locations. Indeed, MS Lincs says
>>
>> Appone a bent wothowt the borge
>> With scharpe arrowes he schote hym thurghe
>>
>> 3) The declivity of a hill [A. Sax]. Esotericists can wonder if this is
>> the
>> meaning found in "Squyr of Lowe Degré, 65
>> 4) Subject [Cov. Myst.] I believe this usage is yet current in England,
>> at
>> least. To talk of someone and his bent, or someone's bent, is to
>> reference
>> his hobby, preocuppation, and so on.
>> 5) A chimney [North]
>> 6) A long coarse grass, same as "bent-grass". Gerard also call a bundle
>> of
>> it a 'bent'. See Salop. Antiq p. 324; Also Brit Bibl. i. 212
>> 7) "Brows bent" ie, arched. See Dyce's nots to Skelton p. 146. Rom of the
>> Rose, 1217.
>> 8) Form: shape - here is an interesting entry by Gower, the even more
>> prolix
>> atavist contemporary of Chaucer;
>>
>> My bente whiche that y now have
>> Tille I be take into my grave.
>>
>> // Gower, MS Soc. Antiq 134 f. 50
>>
>> I also note in passing that BENTLES are dry sandy pastures near the sea
>> covered chiefly by bent-grass. It is also interesting to look at the
>> stem~
>> BEN, which I see is accorded "true ben" being the utmost stretch of moor
>> [as
>> is a word from Exmoor.] This is not to confused with Ben (4) to be, being
>> the pres. pl. and part. pa. of the A. Sax verb.
>>
>> Probably [ROFL] the key word of the most famous speech of all time
>> utilising
>> the most used verb in the language, and quite fascinating to me is the
>> difference between the regular dialectical use of the word BE in England,
>> which is as regular in country speech now as it was in Anglo Saxon times!
>>
>> ie;- "I be very hungry",
>>
>> whereas the pre. tense of the written word is irregular in every case and
>> in
>> everything except its participle, ie, am, are, is... Some flavor of that
>> still survives following a [North] use, as in "Be we apart," even unto
>> the
>> Americas!
>>
>> As for the Gay Gordons... whatever happened to them?
>>
>> > Phil's colloquial use of "bent" here, suggests [dodgy] [crookedness]
>> > [something fishy] etc. - hth..
>> >
>> > t.
>> >
>> >
>> >> The juxtaposition with
>> >> the notion of bending a bill makes the phrase delightfully absurd.
>> >>
>> >> I will go back to my policy of not commenting on Phil's content;
>>
>> Too late for that! More like having admitted to ...
>>
>> a) knowing no content,
>> b) nor interest in logic,
>> c) accepting false authority in place of either
>> d) without suspecting that the 'authorities' were of the same ilk as our
>> nihilist
>> e) and admitting to not understanding why I should write about another of
>> that ilk by referencing objective facts, off-topic from chess to
>> demonstrate
>> the means and the mores of certain people... Specifically without content
>> or
>> logic, and as basis for abuse.
>>
>> ... Our Jerry Spinrad, ace chess historian, declares himself sense-free,
>> and
>> runs away after getting in a gratuitous dig or two of his own [and that,
>> I
>> remind fascinated readers, is why brown-nosing contentless drooling twits
>> share their fascinating opinions with us.]
>>
>> Cordially! Phil Innes
>>
>> > if
>> >> any of his supporters think any of it makes sense, they can post
>> >> coherent versions and I will be happy to respond to them.
>> >>
>> >> Jerry Spinrad




       
Date: 04 Aug 2008 18:06:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
While we are at it, if you, t, are a Brit, how many of these Americanisms
are used in speech in the Islands? Or to make the answer easier, how many do
you not understand?

back of
anyway
standpoint
right along
just [not meaning 'fair', but 'only']

Oh yeah! [meaning 'no']
Come again! [meaning 'explain yourself']

sidewalk
hoodlum
Jim Crow
gasoline
G-man
josh

hornswoggle
craps
hooch [native am.]
gat

drag
cool [unrelated to heat]
kinky
hot rod
beat [tiried]
bird [for girl] [which was London 60's - but still in use?

these below appear to be American contributions to the language:-

clearing
underbrush
garter snake
groundhog
land office
apple butter
sidewalk
hitch-hike
low-down

have an axe to grind
fly off the handle
bury the hatchet

From French-American we got:
portage
chowder
cache
bayou
levee

From Dutch American:
cole slaw
cookie
boss
scow

From German American
noodle
pretzel
sauerkraut

From Negro American
banjo
hoodoo
jazz

Both appendicitis and moron were born on American soil - and in fact, says
Mario Pei, some 50,000 words - though he adds, that many of these are
English from the C16th and C17th, now superceded in UK by other words.

Then there are varieties of idioms:

shotgum wedding
to make a bee-line
mad as a hornet
to play possum
to work like a beaver
to bark up the wrong tree
chip on one's shoulder
cross to bear
to settle someone's hash
horse sense
stag party
to pull up stakes
dead beat
stamping ground
hired hand
to talk turkey
to hold one's horses
boom and bust
assembly line
trouble-shooter
sweat-shop
lockout
cooling-off period
white collar
priming the pump
pork barrel
dark horse
favorite son
lame duck
to sit on the fence
landslide

thou ain't ain't American, though it is seems so, post-Victorian Enlish gave
it up, but Shakespeare said ain't so did Queen Victoria.

One interesting aspect of the inclusion of Celtic words into Anglo Saxon is
place names. Perhaps any Americans reading this could report their knowledge
of the following, which are likely some 2,000 years old, preceding A. Sax

Kent
Devon
York
London
Thames
Avon
Salis [bury]
Exeter
Gloucester
Worcester
Cumberland [land of the Cymri]
Cornwall

Better known are the common-place words incorporated into Anglo Saxon;

glen
heather
clan
bard
plaid
slogan
claymore
dirk
wraith
[all Scots Gaelic or q-Celtic]

from other sources we have
crag
dun
cumb / combe
and many landscape descriptions

And on that note, goobye and good luck!

Edward P. Innes





        
Date: 10 Sep 2008 12:17:29
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
Chess One wrote:
>
> While we are at it, if you, t, are a Brit, how many of these Americanisms
> are used in speech in the Islands? Or to make the answer easier, how many do
> you not understand?

Dear Phil,

These are quite some lists & choosing the easiest option - in truth
there are few thingies not understood by me here; 1) jim crow?..
2) hornswaggle?..[guess=nonsense]
3) hooch? - slang term = dope/booze
etc..
4) garter snake = knight of the
realm - [ask r.keene]..
5) scow?? maybe something to do with
hilary in newcastle..

That's it really; & a couple for you if you so desire: a)"beg-yours" =
pardon?..

b)"bogan"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogan..


>
> back of
> anyway
> standpoint
> right along
> just [not meaning 'fair', but 'only']
>
> Oh yeah! [meaning 'no']
> Come again! [meaning 'explain yourself']
>
> sidewalk
> hoodlum
> Jim Crow
> gasoline
> G-man
> josh
>
> hornswoggle
> craps
> hooch [native am.]
> gat
>
> drag
> cool [unrelated to heat]
> kinky
> hot rod
> beat [tiried]
> bird [for girl] [which was London 60's - but still in use?
>
> these below appear to be American contributions to the language:-
>
> clearing
> underbrush
> garter snake
> groundhog
> land office
> apple butter
> sidewalk
> hitch-hike
> low-down
>
> have an axe to grind
> fly off the handle
> bury the hatchet
>
> From French-American we got:
> portage
> chowder
> cache
> bayou
> levee
>
> From Dutch American:
> cole slaw
> cookie
> boss
> scow
>
> From German American
> noodle
> pretzel
> sauerkraut
>
> From Negro American
> banjo
> hoodoo
> jazz
>
> Both appendicitis and moron were born on American soil - and in fact, says
> Mario Pei, some 50,000 words - though he adds, that many of these are
> English from the C16th and C17th, now superceded in UK by other words.

Why am I unsurprised by this..

>
> Then there are varieties of idioms:
>
> shotgum wedding
> to make a bee-line
> mad as a hornet
> to play possum
> to work like a beaver
> to bark up the wrong tree
> chip on one's shoulder
> cross to bear
> to settle someone's hash
> horse sense
> stag party
> to pull up stakes
> dead beat
> stamping ground
> hired hand
> to talk turkey
> to hold one's horses
> boom and bust
> assembly line
> trouble-shooter
> sweat-shop
> lockout
> cooling-off period
> white collar
> priming the pump
> pork barrel
> dark horse
> favorite son
> lame duck
> to sit on the fence
> landslide
>
> thou ain't ain't American, though it is seems so, post-Victorian Enlish gave
> it up, but Shakespeare said ain't so did Queen Victoria.
>
> One interesting aspect of the inclusion of Celtic words into Anglo Saxon is
> place names. Perhaps any Americans reading this could report their knowledge
> of the following, which are likely some 2,000 years old, preceding A. Sax
>
> Kent
> Devon
> York
> London
> Thames
> Avon
> Salis [bury]
> Exeter
> Gloucester
> Worcester
> Cumberland [land of the Cymri]
> Cornwall
>
> Better known are the common-place words incorporated into Anglo Saxon;
>
> glen
> heather
> clan
> bard
> plaid
> slogan
> claymore
> dirk
> wraith
> [all Scots Gaelic or q-Celtic]
>
> from other sources we have
> crag
> dun
> cumb / combe
> and many landscape descriptions

eg. tombolo..

t.


>
> And on that note, goobye and good luck!
>
> Edward P. Innes


         
Date: 10 Sep 2008 10:50:57
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead

"thumbody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> While we are at it, if you, t, are a Brit, how many of these Americanisms
>> are used in speech in the Islands? Or to make the answer easier, how many
>> do
>> you not understand?
>
> Dear Phil,
>
> These are quite some lists & choosing the easiest option - in truth
> there are few thingies not understood by me here; 1) jim crow?..

During a most shameful period laws enacted to force seperation [called
segregation] of what are called here 'races' [itself a racist term.
Americans still say 'race' when they mean different color skin, whereas as
we know there is human race, and eg, rabbits, frogs, birds etc] The rules or
laws were Federally overturned in 1965.


> 2) hornswaggle?..[guess=nonsense]

Depends who you listen to, here are a couple of opinions:
"We're hornswoggled. We're backed to a standstill. We're double-crossed to a
fare-you-well" bitterly complains a character in Jack London's The Valley of
the Moon of 1913. Seven years later the young P G Wodehouse used it in
Little Warrior: "Would she have the generosity to realize that a man ought
not to be held accountable for what he says in the moment when he discovers
that he has been cheated, deceived, robbed - in a word, hornswoggled?" By
then, the word had been in the language with that meaning for more than half
a century, and even then it had been around for some decades with an older
sense of "embarrass, disconcert or confuse". People had long since turned it
into an exclamation of surprise or amazement: "Well, I'll be hornswoggled!"

Peter Watts argues in A Dictionary of the Old West that it comes from
cowpunching. A steer that has been lassoed around the neck will
"hornswoggle", wag and twist its head around frantically to try to slip
free of the rope.



> 3) hooch? - slang term = dope/booze

Yeah - that's the primary use, originally home-brewed corn alcohol. Some
current US slang [transient] follows a movie dog's name.

> 4) garter snake = knight of the
> realm - [ask r.keene]..

Its a snake likes to dress up in womens undergarments. Very popular here in
pet stores.

> 5) scow?? maybe something to do with
> hilary in newcastle..

Um., in Liverpool, as in scouse? Word is Danish for flat-bottomed boat [your
basic barge] and usually hypehated with garbage. Basically cities load up
these barges with rubbish more or less toxic and tow them to central
america. Of late Central Americans have resented the practice.

> That's it really; & a couple for you if you so desire: a)"beg-yours" =
> pardon?..
>
> b)"bogan"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogan..

those are interesting definitions [but did I use that word? what context?] I
see the Aussies don't know, viz:
---
The origin of the term 'bogan' as a pejorative is unclear; both the
Macquarie Dictionary and the Australian Oxford Dictionary cite its origin as
unknown. In a name context, it means "soft" like a bog or "bow" as in bow
and arrow. The name can be found in the records of the English Parliament,
especially from Devonshire, and all over Ireland.
---
Whereas it doesn't seem to difficult to find the word BOG: with a meaning of
sturdy, self sufficient, but perjoratively the old verb is, 'to boast'. A
BOGGARD is a jakes, and a BOGGLER is 'a vicious woman.' BOGGART has several
meanings, including scarecrow [alt, BOGGARD] itself deriving from the
Northern English word for a ghost, goblin, and the famous BOGEY-MAN.
American English has BOGGLE, and BOGLE, & BUGABOO, with general senses of
fast and loose, unskillful. BOGGING is 'botching up'. BODGE [Hen VI 1. 4]
'to patch clumsily', must be the modern BOTCH.

The Devon derivation you mention is BOCK, fear. Evidently we have
association of fearful attitudes, fearful figures, together with their
location. What we don't have is any old word BOG with a modern meaning
'bog'. An origin of BOCK may be the A. Sax word BODE; one meaning of which
is: "an omen."

=========

Lots of American words are older English than of current usage in England,
arriving here with Puritans, and thereby American diction often preserves
what would otherwise be lost, since these early words often have deep roots
in the language.

The American Linguist Mario Pei says 'only' 25% of A. Sax words are
currently in use in English.

What is of general interest to people who like words, are 2 /exceptions/ to
general English writing - both from Elizabethan period, and both directing
the future course of the language.

Pei says that written English may have had little to do with how people
actually spoke - and he says this of the mid Saxon period [say 800 forwards]
and also throughout the Norman one and mid-medieval times. He posits written
English was a largely artificial and simplified means that 'clerks' [people
who could write] adopted in order to communicate acroos strong dialectal
differences in speech, but communicate only with each other.

The odd thing about the British Bible was that it was intended for general
use, and somewhat extraordinary measures were taken in selecting its words
so that people could read it for themselves - therefore 'English' words were
chosen [meaning Old English Saxon] and utilizing only 6,000 different words
total, 80% of them were 'English'.

The other atavist was Shakespeare who used rather more words [about 25,000
of them] 80% of which were also 'English'. One immediate reason for the
popularity of Shakespeare was that unlike much other product from 'writers',
people could understand it!

Whether one uses just 25% of A. Sax words or 80%, the other notable
statistic is that of the 100 most commonly used current Englishwords, they
are /all/ A. Sax. [some say 98%], and there are some English/American
differences, but as above, favoring more American use of 'atavisims'.

Earlier authors like Chaucer were also atavists, heavily selecting old
english words, and this too can only have helped his popularity. An
interesting book on the /force/ of old english, and anglo-celtic, is Tolkien
on Beowulf, eg. and which displays much of the reason Tolkien chose his own
words - again, a writer with a vast appeal among the people.

For these, and other reasons, hardly dead. Here is a funny entry: DEDE [A.
Sax] 'to grow dead.' DEDELY: mortal.

Cordially, Phil Innes


>>
>> back of
>> anyway
>> standpoint
>> right along
>> just [not meaning 'fair', but 'only']
>>
>> Oh yeah! [meaning 'no']
>> Come again! [meaning 'explain yourself']
>>
>> sidewalk
>> hoodlum
>> Jim Crow
>> gasoline
>> G-man
>> josh
>>
>> hornswoggle
>> craps
>> hooch [native am.]
>> gat
>>
>> drag
>> cool [unrelated to heat]
>> kinky
>> hot rod
>> beat [tiried]
>> bird [for girl] [which was London 60's - but still in use?
>>
>> these below appear to be American contributions to the language:-
>>
>> clearing
>> underbrush
>> garter snake
>> groundhog
>> land office
>> apple butter
>> sidewalk
>> hitch-hike
>> low-down
>>
>> have an axe to grind
>> fly off the handle
>> bury the hatchet
>>
>> From French-American we got:
>> portage
>> chowder
>> cache
>> bayou
>> levee
>>
>> From Dutch American:
>> cole slaw
>> cookie
>> boss
>> scow
>>
>> From German American
>> noodle
>> pretzel
>> sauerkraut
>>
>> From Negro American
>> banjo
>> hoodoo
>> jazz
>>
>> Both appendicitis and moron were born on American soil - and in fact,
>> says
>> Mario Pei, some 50,000 words - though he adds, that many of these are
>> English from the C16th and C17th, now superceded in UK by other words.
>
> Why am I unsurprised by this..
>
>>
>> Then there are varieties of idioms:
>>
>> shotgum wedding
>> to make a bee-line
>> mad as a hornet
>> to play possum
>> to work like a beaver
>> to bark up the wrong tree
>> chip on one's shoulder
>> cross to bear
>> to settle someone's hash
>> horse sense
>> stag party
>> to pull up stakes
>> dead beat
>> stamping ground
>> hired hand
>> to talk turkey
>> to hold one's horses
>> boom and bust
>> assembly line
>> trouble-shooter
>> sweat-shop
>> lockout
>> cooling-off period
>> white collar
>> priming the pump
>> pork barrel
>> dark horse
>> favorite son
>> lame duck
>> to sit on the fence
>> landslide
>>
>> thou ain't ain't American, though it is seems so, post-Victorian Enlish
>> gave
>> it up, but Shakespeare said ain't so did Queen Victoria.
>>
>> One interesting aspect of the inclusion of Celtic words into Anglo Saxon
>> is
>> place names. Perhaps any Americans reading this could report their
>> knowledge
>> of the following, which are likely some 2,000 years old, preceding A. Sax
>>
>> Kent
>> Devon
>> York
>> London
>> Thames
>> Avon
>> Salis [bury]
>> Exeter
>> Gloucester
>> Worcester
>> Cumberland [land of the Cymri]
>> Cornwall
>>
>> Better known are the common-place words incorporated into Anglo Saxon;
>>
>> glen
>> heather
>> clan
>> bard
>> plaid
>> slogan
>> claymore
>> dirk
>> wraith
>> [all Scots Gaelic or q-Celtic]
>>
>> from other sources we have
>> crag
>> dun
>> cumb / combe
>> and many landscape descriptions
>
> eg. tombolo..
>
> t.
>
>
>>
>> And on that note, goobye and good luck!
>>
>> Edward P. Innes




   
Date: 31 Jul 2008 14:24:04
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead

I regret to inform rgcp readers that Old English died in January of
this year, in Monroe Township:

https://www.legacy.com/obituaries.asp?Page=3DObitFinderOrder&PersonID=3D101=
086814

LT







On Jul 28, 2:43=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:06=A0am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 1:27=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not see=
m to
> > > >>>>>> change. =A0Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, =
personal
> > > >>>>>> attacks, and mudslinging.
> > > >>>>> Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I ref=
rain
> > > >>>>> from answering it for your sake?
> > > >>>> You work on that and let us know.
> > > >>> Not much work to do. I don't take direction from the mail-order
> > > >>> Reverend. Especially when he's wrong.
> > > >> You asked; I answered. =A0It is not an unusual occurrence in conve=
rsation.
>
> > > >> As for your comment about my religion, I already expect this kind =
of
> > > >> behavior from you. =A0Go ahead, prove my case.
>
> > > > You've proved mine. I made no comment about your "religion", whatev=
er
> > > > it may be. I commented on your "credentials" as a clergyman.
>
> > > Okay. =A0Why? =A0What do you hope to gain by diverting the conversati=
on
> > > towards credentials?
>
> > > >>>>> It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
> > > >>>>>> good for. =A0I hope not.
> > > >>>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
> > > >>>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. =A0And this is a gen=
eral
> > > >>>> comment on all participants.
>
> > =A0 I for one had no trouble whatever in
> > understanding Dr. IMnes' comments
> > regarding the English language,
> > including his point that old English
> > has not "died", but rather it has
> > evolved into modern English. =A0Indeed,
> > the attacks on the nearly-an-IM 2450
> > /on this score/ are just plain silly; the
> > attempt to recruit "authorities" in this
> > vein, pathetic.
>
> It would be understandable if Neil was bringing the subject up to
> ridicule him; I could understand Phil defending his interpretation,
> even if that is going against standard usage of the term dead
> language. However, Phil uses this out of the blue to attack Neil with
> the post
>
> > Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> > stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been give=
n a
> > name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> Why would Phil harp on this of all points? I agree that this issue is
> unimportant; my original comment was made in the hope that Phil would
> simply stop interjecting this strange argument into the chess
> newsgroup. It is only after I found that Phil had been told very
> explicitly in other groups that his usage was considered incorrect
> that it occurred to me just how bizarre it was for him to use it to
> attack Neil; I still find it almost impossible to believe.
>
> If the result is that Phil shuts up about old English on this group,
> this will be a minor good point to come out of my comment. And if he
> is mocked a bit in the bargain, I feel confident that on this score he
> has earned it.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
>
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
>
> > =A0 But as for singling out Mr. Brennen
> > as a mudslinger, personal-attacker
> > and sewer of strife-- that is equally
> > ludicrous. =A0If indeed the Reverend
> > Walker wishes to be taken seriously,
> > he would do better to stop harrying
> > only those who disapprove of the
> > nearly-an-IM's antics, and instead try
> > to apply himself in a fair-and-balanced
> > manner to everyone who violates his
> > /purported/ standards. =A0I won't bother
> > to mention the fact that for every
> > "seed of strife" harvested by the
> > nearly-an-IM, he sews a handful of
> > his own, since that is *self-evident*.
>
> > =A0 Indeed, one need look no further
> > than the now-famous thread in which
> > Sir Dr. IMnes laid claim to his title
> > and FIDE-rating for a classic example
> > of him laying on the mud and patting
> > it down, hot and heavy; and who
> > should our good friend, IM Innes, 2450,
> > have targeted in that very same thread
> > but Mr. Brennen-- who was berated for
> > having a (real) USCF rating of medium
> > grade. =A0Well, ever since (and probably
> > before) that happened, the two of them
> > have been going at it, tooth and nail--
> > yet the good Reverend seems blind as
> > a mole-bat to the actions of one, but
> > not the other! =A0'Tis a shameful sight to
> > behold, personal bias and bigotry is.
>
> > =A0 If this were the very first "sighting", we
> > might be inclined to forgive (but not
> > forget); but alas, the Reverend has been
> > advised before, yet he stubbornly
> > persists in his wayward ways, in this
> > heavy-handed personal bias. =A0I make
> > this post, not to "attack" or ridicule the
> > good Reverend, but to advise him that
> > his trickery, his preferential treatment
> > of one poor sinner over another, is
> > obvious to all but the most obtuse
> > readers here (indeed, there are many).
>
> > =A0 My great-great- ...great-grand-bot,Sun Tsu-bot once wrote: "seize t=
he
>
> > (moral) high ground!" =A0But this of
> > course is impossible under these
> > circumstances, where one fellow is
> > given a free pass while others are
> > taken to task for the very same
> > crimes. =A0Like King Solomon, you
> > must first /earn/ the respect of the
> > people, and /only then/ take men to
> > task for their many sins; and how do
> > you earn that respect? =A0By
> > demonstrating fairness-- not by
> > singling out NB, just because he is
> > an ornery old cuss (or because you
> > for some reason wish to exempt the
> > like sins of nearly-IMnes).
>
> > =A0Is fairness too much to ask? =A0We
> > shall see... .
>
> > =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



   
Date: 31 Jul 2008 14:01:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 30, 10:00=A0am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:

> There isn't much else you can do. He'll argue the sky is green till
> his teeth fall out.

If you would simply don amber-colored
sunglasses, you would see that the sky
*is* green. The glasses will also help by
protecting your delicate eyes from
harmful UV rays, BTW. Another cool
way to see that the sky is green is to
move away from the Earth at a certain
velocity, calculated to shift the entire
color spectrum one notch "warmer", so
that blue becomes green and orange
becomes red. (This is very tricky, since
you have to avoid wormholes and other
problems like asteroid belts; also, have
you seen the price of next-gen. rocket
fuel lately?)


-- help bot








   
Date: 31 Jul 2008 06:10:16
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 31, 7:22=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 31, 6:34=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 1:43 am, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jul 28, 1:06 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 28, 1:27 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>>> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not=
seem to
> > > > > >>>>>> change. =A0Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating stri=
fe, personal
> > > > > >>>>>> attacks, and mudslinging.
> > > > > >>>>> Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I=
refrain
> > > > > >>>>> from answering it for your sake?
> > > > > >>>> You work on that and let us know.
> > > > > >>> Not much work to do. I don't take direction from the mail-ord=
er
> > > > > >>> Reverend. Especially when he's wrong.
> > > > > >> You asked; I answered. =A0It is not an unusual occurrence in c=
onversation.
>
> > > > > >> As for your comment about my religion, I already expect this k=
ind of
> > > > > >> behavior from you. =A0Go ahead, prove my case.
>
> > > > > > You've proved mine. I made no comment about your "religion", wh=
atever
> > > > > > it may be. I commented on your "credentials" as a clergyman.
>
> > > > > Okay. =A0Why? =A0What do you hope to gain by diverting the conver=
sation
> > > > > towards credentials?
>
> > > > > >>>>> It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
> > > > > >>>>>> good for. =A0I hope not.
> > > > > >>>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
> > > > > >>>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. =A0And this is a=
general
> > > > > >>>> comment on all participants.
>
> > > > =A0 I for one had no trouble whatever in
> > > > understanding Dr. IMnes' comments
> > > > regarding the English language,
> > > > including his point that old English
> > > > has not "died", but rather it has
> > > > evolved into modern English. =A0Indeed,
> > > > the attacks on the nearly-an-IM 2450
> > > > /on this score/ are just plain silly; the
> > > > attempt to recruit "authorities" in this
> > > > vein, pathetic.
>
> > > It would be understandable if Neil was bringing the subject up to
> > > ridicule him; I could understand Phil defending his interpretation,
> > > even if that is going against standard usage of the term dead
> > > language. However, Phil uses this out of the blue to attack Neil with
> > > the post
>
> > > > Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable=
of
> > > > stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been =
given a
> > > > name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> > > Why would Phil harp on this of all points? I agree that this issue is
> > > unimportant; my original comment was made in the hope that Phil would
> > > simply stop interjecting this strange argument into the chess
> > > newsgroup. It is only after I found that Phil had been told very
> > > explicitly in other groups that his usage was considered incorrect
> > > that it occurred to me just how bizarre it was for him to use it to
> > > attack Neil; I still find it almost impossible to believe.
>
> > > If the result is that Phil shuts up about old English on this group,
> > > this will be a minor good point to come out of my comment. And if he
> > > is mocked a bit in the bargain, I feel confident that on this score h=
e
> > > has earned it.
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > Another comment, from Dr. David Kathman, editor of a volume in the
> > Arden Shakespeare (third edition):
> > **************
>
> > I have a hard time believing that anyone could be that dense, but the
> > evidence seems pretty conclusive. =A0Many people, including me, have
> > tried to explain to Innes that words such as "old" and "English" are
> > modern English words descended from Old English words ("eald" and
> > "englisc"), and are not themselves Old English words. =A0We have also
> > tried to explain that a language consists of more than just a list of
> > words (that's what "lexicon" means, Phil); it also consists of word
> > order, sentence structure, and word structure, all of which are very
> > different in Old English and modern English, so that even if one
> > insists that modern English words such as "old" somehow count as being
> > "Old English", using such words in a modern English sentence does not
> > constitute "speaking Old English". Yet despite all these elaborate
> > attempts at instruction, Innes continues to cheerfully insist that the
> > sentence "Old English is dead" is itself Old English, indeed that this
> > proposition is self-evidently true, and he also seems to think that we
> > have never explained why it is wrong. =A0The only explanation I can
> > think of is some form of cognitive dissonance, where his brain simply
> > refuses to register any of the evidence contradicting his idee fixe.
> > ***********
>
> > > > =A0 But as for singling out Mr. Brennen
> > > > as a mudslinger, personal-attacker
> > > > and sewer of strife-- that is equally
> > > > ludicrous. =A0If indeed the Reverend
> > > > Walker wishes to be taken seriously,
> > > > he would do better to stop harrying
> > > > only those who disapprove of the
> > > > nearly-an-IM's antics, and instead try
> > > > to apply himself in a fair-and-balanced
> > > > manner to everyone who violates his
> > > > /purported/ standards. =A0I won't bother
> > > > to mention the fact that for every
> > > > "seed of strife" harvested by the
> > > > nearly-an-IM, he sews a handful of
> > > > his own, since that is *self-evident*.
>
> > > > =A0 Indeed, one need look no further
> > > > than the now-famous thread in which
> > > > Sir Dr. IMnes laid claim to his title
> > > > and FIDE-rating for a classic example
> > > > of him laying on the mud and patting
> > > > it down, hot and heavy; and who
> > > > should our good friend, IM Innes, 2450,
> > > > have targeted in that very same thread
> > > > but Mr. Brennen-- who was berated for
> > > > having a (real) USCF rating of medium
> > > > grade. =A0Well, ever since (and probably
> > > > before) that happened, the two of them
> > > > have been going at it, tooth and nail--
> > > > yet the good Reverend seems blind as
> > > > a mole-bat to the actions of one, but
> > > > not the other! =A0'Tis a shameful sight to
> > > > behold, personal bias and bigotry is.
>
> > > > =A0 If this were the very first "sighting", we
> > > > might be inclined to forgive (but not
> > > > forget); but alas, the Reverend has been
> > > > advised before, yet he stubbornly
> > > > persists in his wayward ways, in this
> > > > heavy-handed personal bias. =A0I make
> > > > this post, not to "attack" or ridicule the
> > > > good Reverend, but to advise him that
> > > > his trickery, his preferential treatment
> > > > of one poor sinner over another, is
> > > > obvious to all but the most obtuse
> > > > readers here (indeed, there are many).
>
> > > > =A0 My great-great- ...great-grand-bot,Sun Tsu-bot once wrote: "sei=
ze the
>
> > > > (moral) high ground!" =A0But this of
> > > > course is impossible under these
> > > > circumstances, where one fellow is
> > > > given a free pass while others are
> > > > taken to task for the very same
> > > > crimes. =A0Like King Solomon, you
> > > > must first /earn/ the respect of the
> > > > people, and /only then/ take men to
> > > > task for their many sins; and how do
> > > > you earn that respect? =A0By
> > > > demonstrating fairness-- not by
> > > > singling out NB, just because he is
> > > > an ornery old cuss (or because you
> > > > for some reason wish to exempt the
> > > > like sins of nearly-IMnes).
>
> > > > =A0Is fairness too much to ask? =A0We
> > > > shall see... .
>
> > > > =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> I have a question. Before your bare your teeth and prepare to feast on
> my jugular;hear me out.
> In the period of time where the speach was spoken and now classified
> as "old english";were not spelling conventions unstandarized? People
> simply wrote things how they sounded?

This is true, but this lack of spelling means allows us to have a very
good idea of how words were pronounced. You can find the different
spellings of the same word, and the way it is used in rhymes. We
certainly could not understand a speaker of old English in
conversation, and anything you read from Old English (eg Beowulf) is
translated unless you are a scholar. My daughter's professor told her
class, partly as a joke but partly out of belief, that the language
should be called Anglo-Saxon rather than Old English, but if you
called it Anglo-Saxon then you couldn't work in an English
department.

Of course, many of the words survive in some form; Old English is
interesting and is studied because of its relation to modern English.
Note that old, English, is, and dead could all be considered to be
German (alt, Englisch, ist, and tot), but it is useful for me to tell
people that I speak German rather than English.

That eing said, if Phil were rational, I feel he could make a valid
more restrained stand on the matter. It is reasonable to disagree
with accepted usage of language, and advocate changes. Examples in my
own case: I dislike and would not use the word inflammable to denote
intensely flammable objects, I refuse to pronounce the word err as
"er" using instead air, and (as I did in the previous paragraph) I
choose to leave in the comma immediately before and in a string of
words.

The rational position Phil could take is that it is confusing to have
one word has two related but clearly distinct meanings. A dead
language can mean that the language did not survive in any way (the
inhabitants are extinct, or have all adopted the language of their
current country, for example), or that there is a distinct modern
language derived from this older language.

I myself advocated (in my chesscafe article on antisemitism in chess)
the introduction of a new word to distinguish between two similar
concepts. In that case, what is needed is two words for Jewish, so
that I do not need to explain why (for example) I have no need to know
about the available synagogues if I move to a new town, but when my
wife had children I wanted to be tested for Tay-Sachs.

Where Phil gets completely crazy is in seeming to think that people
using the terms in the standard form are being nutty. It should be
obvious to anyone that even if Phil does not like using the statement,
the fact that Neil uses the phrase Old English is dead in the same way
that the enormous majority of people who are interested in the phrase
use it does not somehow make Neil a blithering idiot on every subject.

I feel a bit uncomfortable with this entirely non-chess discussion,
but I do believe Phil is being absolutely idiotic here. I think that
is self-evident to the vast majority, but if others such as yourself
(and I am not saying that you did so) want to defend Phil's position,
I will respond to such posts. I will not respond to Phil directly; it
just does not seem worth it, when I think that everyone except himself
realizes how ridiculous he looks.

Jerry Spinrad
> - Show quoted text -



   
Date: 31 Jul 2008 05:22:54
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 31, 6:34=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:43 am, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 1:06 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 28, 1:27 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>>> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not s=
eem to
> > > > >>>>>> change. =A0Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife=
, personal
> > > > >>>>>> attacks, and mudslinging.
> > > > >>>>> Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I r=
efrain
> > > > >>>>> from answering it for your sake?
> > > > >>>> You work on that and let us know.
> > > > >>> Not much work to do. I don't take direction from the mail-order
> > > > >>> Reverend. Especially when he's wrong.
> > > > >> You asked; I answered. =A0It is not an unusual occurrence in con=
versation.
>
> > > > >> As for your comment about my religion, I already expect this kin=
d of
> > > > >> behavior from you. =A0Go ahead, prove my case.
>
> > > > > You've proved mine. I made no comment about your "religion", what=
ever
> > > > > it may be. I commented on your "credentials" as a clergyman.
>
> > > > Okay. =A0Why? =A0What do you hope to gain by diverting the conversa=
tion
> > > > towards credentials?
>
> > > > >>>>> It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
> > > > >>>>>> good for. =A0I hope not.
> > > > >>>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
> > > > >>>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. =A0And this is a g=
eneral
> > > > >>>> comment on all participants.
>
> > > =A0 I for one had no trouble whatever in
> > > understanding Dr. IMnes' comments
> > > regarding the English language,
> > > including his point that old English
> > > has not "died", but rather it has
> > > evolved into modern English. =A0Indeed,
> > > the attacks on the nearly-an-IM 2450
> > > /on this score/ are just plain silly; the
> > > attempt to recruit "authorities" in this
> > > vein, pathetic.
>
> > It would be understandable if Neil was bringing the subject up to
> > ridicule him; I could understand Phil defending his interpretation,
> > even if that is going against standard usage of the term dead
> > language. However, Phil uses this out of the blue to attack Neil with
> > the post
>
> > > Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable o=
f
> > > stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been gi=
ven a
> > > name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> > Why would Phil harp on this of all points? I agree that this issue is
> > unimportant; my original comment was made in the hope that Phil would
> > simply stop interjecting this strange argument into the chess
> > newsgroup. It is only after I found that Phil had been told very
> > explicitly in other groups that his usage was considered incorrect
> > that it occurred to me just how bizarre it was for him to use it to
> > attack Neil; I still find it almost impossible to believe.
>
> > If the result is that Phil shuts up about old English on this group,
> > this will be a minor good point to come out of my comment. And if he
> > is mocked a bit in the bargain, I feel confident that on this score he
> > has earned it.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> Another comment, from Dr. David Kathman, editor of a volume in the
> Arden Shakespeare (third edition):
> **************
>
> I have a hard time believing that anyone could be that dense, but the
> evidence seems pretty conclusive. =A0Many people, including me, have
> tried to explain to Innes that words such as "old" and "English" are
> modern English words descended from Old English words ("eald" and
> "englisc"), and are not themselves Old English words. =A0We have also
> tried to explain that a language consists of more than just a list of
> words (that's what "lexicon" means, Phil); it also consists of word
> order, sentence structure, and word structure, all of which are very
> different in Old English and modern English, so that even if one
> insists that modern English words such as "old" somehow count as being
> "Old English", using such words in a modern English sentence does not
> constitute "speaking Old English". Yet despite all these elaborate
> attempts at instruction, Innes continues to cheerfully insist that the
> sentence "Old English is dead" is itself Old English, indeed that this
> proposition is self-evidently true, and he also seems to think that we
> have never explained why it is wrong. =A0The only explanation I can
> think of is some form of cognitive dissonance, where his brain simply
> refuses to register any of the evidence contradicting his idee fixe.
> ***********
>
>
>
> > > =A0 But as for singling out Mr. Brennen
> > > as a mudslinger, personal-attacker
> > > and sewer of strife-- that is equally
> > > ludicrous. =A0If indeed the Reverend
> > > Walker wishes to be taken seriously,
> > > he would do better to stop harrying
> > > only those who disapprove of the
> > > nearly-an-IM's antics, and instead try
> > > to apply himself in a fair-and-balanced
> > > manner to everyone who violates his
> > > /purported/ standards. =A0I won't bother
> > > to mention the fact that for every
> > > "seed of strife" harvested by the
> > > nearly-an-IM, he sews a handful of
> > > his own, since that is *self-evident*.
>
> > > =A0 Indeed, one need look no further
> > > than the now-famous thread in which
> > > Sir Dr. IMnes laid claim to his title
> > > and FIDE-rating for a classic example
> > > of him laying on the mud and patting
> > > it down, hot and heavy; and who
> > > should our good friend, IM Innes, 2450,
> > > have targeted in that very same thread
> > > but Mr. Brennen-- who was berated for
> > > having a (real) USCF rating of medium
> > > grade. =A0Well, ever since (and probably
> > > before) that happened, the two of them
> > > have been going at it, tooth and nail--
> > > yet the good Reverend seems blind as
> > > a mole-bat to the actions of one, but
> > > not the other! =A0'Tis a shameful sight to
> > > behold, personal bias and bigotry is.
>
> > > =A0 If this were the very first "sighting", we
> > > might be inclined to forgive (but not
> > > forget); but alas, the Reverend has been
> > > advised before, yet he stubbornly
> > > persists in his wayward ways, in this
> > > heavy-handed personal bias. =A0I make
> > > this post, not to "attack" or ridicule the
> > > good Reverend, but to advise him that
> > > his trickery, his preferential treatment
> > > of one poor sinner over another, is
> > > obvious to all but the most obtuse
> > > readers here (indeed, there are many).
>
> > > =A0 My great-great- ...great-grand-bot,Sun Tsu-bot once wrote: "seize=
the
>
> > > (moral) high ground!" =A0But this of
> > > course is impossible under these
> > > circumstances, where one fellow is
> > > given a free pass while others are
> > > taken to task for the very same
> > > crimes. =A0Like King Solomon, you
> > > must first /earn/ the respect of the
> > > people, and /only then/ take men to
> > > task for their many sins; and how do
> > > you earn that respect? =A0By
> > > demonstrating fairness-- not by
> > > singling out NB, just because he is
> > > an ornery old cuss (or because you
> > > for some reason wish to exempt the
> > > like sins of nearly-IMnes).
>
> > > =A0Is fairness too much to ask? =A0We
> > > shall see... .
>
> > > =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -

I have a question. Before your bare your teeth and prepare to feast on
my jugular;hear me out.
In the period of time where the speach was spoken and now classified
as "old english";were not spelling conventions unstandarized? People
simply wrote things how they sounded?


   
Date: 31 Jul 2008 04:34:28
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 28, 1:43 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:06 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 1:27 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not seem to
> > > >>>>>> change. Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, personal
> > > >>>>>> attacks, and mudslinging.
> > > >>>>> Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I refrain
> > > >>>>> from answering it for your sake?
> > > >>>> You work on that and let us know.
> > > >>> Not much work to do. I don't take direction from the mail-order
> > > >>> Reverend. Especially when he's wrong.
> > > >> You asked; I answered. It is not an unusual occurrence in conversation.
>
> > > >> As for your comment about my religion, I already expect this kind of
> > > >> behavior from you. Go ahead, prove my case.
>
> > > > You've proved mine. I made no comment about your "religion", whatever
> > > > it may be. I commented on your "credentials" as a clergyman.
>
> > > Okay. Why? What do you hope to gain by diverting the conversation
> > > towards credentials?
>
> > > >>>>> It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
> > > >>>>>> good for. I hope not.
> > > >>>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
> > > >>>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. And this is a general
> > > >>>> comment on all participants.
>
> > I for one had no trouble whatever in
> > understanding Dr. IMnes' comments
> > regarding the English language,
> > including his point that old English
> > has not "died", but rather it has
> > evolved into modern English. Indeed,
> > the attacks on the nearly-an-IM 2450
> > /on this score/ are just plain silly; the
> > attempt to recruit "authorities" in this
> > vein, pathetic.
>
> It would be understandable if Neil was bringing the subject up to
> ridicule him; I could understand Phil defending his interpretation,
> even if that is going against standard usage of the term dead
> language. However, Phil uses this out of the blue to attack Neil with
> the post
>
> > Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> > stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given a
> > name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> Why would Phil harp on this of all points? I agree that this issue is
> unimportant; my original comment was made in the hope that Phil would
> simply stop interjecting this strange argument into the chess
> newsgroup. It is only after I found that Phil had been told very
> explicitly in other groups that his usage was considered incorrect
> that it occurred to me just how bizarre it was for him to use it to
> attack Neil; I still find it almost impossible to believe.
>
> If the result is that Phil shuts up about old English on this group,
> this will be a minor good point to come out of my comment. And if he
> is mocked a bit in the bargain, I feel confident that on this score he
> has earned it.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>

Another comment, from Dr. David Kathman, editor of a volume in the
Arden Shakespeare (third edition):
**************

I have a hard time believing that anyone could be that dense, but the
evidence seems pretty conclusive. Many people, including me, have
tried to explain to Innes that words such as "old" and "English" are
modern English words descended from Old English words ("eald" and
"englisc"), and are not themselves Old English words. We have also
tried to explain that a language consists of more than just a list of
words (that's what "lexicon" means, Phil); it also consists of word
order, sentence structure, and word structure, all of which are very
different in Old English and modern English, so that even if one
insists that modern English words such as "old" somehow count as being
"Old English", using such words in a modern English sentence does not
constitute "speaking Old English". Yet despite all these elaborate
attempts at instruction, Innes continues to cheerfully insist that the
sentence "Old English is dead" is itself Old English, indeed that this
proposition is self-evidently true, and he also seems to think that we
have never explained why it is wrong. The only explanation I can
think of is some form of cognitive dissonance, where his brain simply
refuses to register any of the evidence contradicting his idee fixe.
***********

>
> > But as for singling out Mr. Brennen
> > as a mudslinger, personal-attacker
> > and sewer of strife-- that is equally
> > ludicrous. If indeed the Reverend
> > Walker wishes to be taken seriously,
> > he would do better to stop harrying
> > only those who disapprove of the
> > nearly-an-IM's antics, and instead try
> > to apply himself in a fair-and-balanced
> > manner to everyone who violates his
> > /purported/ standards. I won't bother
> > to mention the fact that for every
> > "seed of strife" harvested by the
> > nearly-an-IM, he sews a handful of
> > his own, since that is *self-evident*.
>
> > Indeed, one need look no further
> > than the now-famous thread in which
> > Sir Dr. IMnes laid claim to his title
> > and FIDE-rating for a classic example
> > of him laying on the mud and patting
> > it down, hot and heavy; and who
> > should our good friend, IM Innes, 2450,
> > have targeted in that very same thread
> > but Mr. Brennen-- who was berated for
> > having a (real) USCF rating of medium
> > grade. Well, ever since (and probably
> > before) that happened, the two of them
> > have been going at it, tooth and nail--
> > yet the good Reverend seems blind as
> > a mole-bat to the actions of one, but
> > not the other! 'Tis a shameful sight to
> > behold, personal bias and bigotry is.
>
> > If this were the very first "sighting", we
> > might be inclined to forgive (but not
> > forget); but alas, the Reverend has been
> > advised before, yet he stubbornly
> > persists in his wayward ways, in this
> > heavy-handed personal bias. I make
> > this post, not to "attack" or ridicule the
> > good Reverend, but to advise him that
> > his trickery, his preferential treatment
> > of one poor sinner over another, is
> > obvious to all but the most obtuse
> > readers here (indeed, there are many).
>
> > My great-great- ...great-grand-bot,Sun Tsu-bot once wrote: "seize the
>
> > (moral) high ground!" But this of
> > course is impossible under these
> > circumstances, where one fellow is
> > given a free pass while others are
> > taken to task for the very same
> > crimes. Like King Solomon, you
> > must first /earn/ the respect of the
> > people, and /only then/ take men to
> > task for their many sins; and how do
> > you earn that respect? By
> > demonstrating fairness-- not by
> > singling out NB, just because he is
> > an ornery old cuss (or because you
> > for some reason wish to exempt the
> > like sins of nearly-IMnes).
>
> > Is fairness too much to ask? We
> > shall see... .
>
> > -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -



   
Date: 31 Jul 2008 04:04:09
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 31, 12:05 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:

> **You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as
> bent as
> a $9 bill.
>
> I'm not sure what he is meaning to say, but I have to give Phil credit
> for an amusing phrase here. In case anybody doesn't get it, this is a
> twist on the phrase queer as a $3 bill, using the British substitution
> of bent for queer in the meaning of homosexual. The juxtaposition with
> the notion of bending a bill makes the phrase delightfully absurd.
>
> I will go back to my policy of not commenting on Phil's content; if
> any of his supporters think any of it makes sense, they can post
> coherent versions and I will be happy to respond to them.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Remember, anytime P Innes mentions or alludes to homosexuality, it's
projection.

BTW, Jerry, congratulations on becoming P Innes' 'favorite' chess
historian.


   
Date: 30 Jul 2008 22:05:26
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 29, 2:39=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
>
> > > However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insis=
ts
> > > on
> > > using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn=
't
> > > exists?
>
> I suppose that since I started this I must reply. There is an accepted
> meaning of the term dead language, and a standard meaning of the term
> OldEnglish. If you want to argue about that meanings on a linguistics
> newsgroup, that is absolutely appropriate.
>
> **Get off itSpinrad! What a bunch of abstract codswallop! Using 4 words o=
f
> a 'dead' language to declare the language dead is a LOGICAL aburdity. But
> you do not address that - neither the extancy of OE in currentEnglish. In
> fact you address no specific point at all. You simply concur with people =
who
> deny that the 100 most used current words ofEnglishare all OldEnglish.
> Therefore, absent facts, you are free to say what you wish! And like Bren=
nen
> has done, said so with many words of OE - or Anglo Saxon as those in the
> know often say.
>
> =A0However, you have to know
> by now that in standard usage, the phrase OldEnglishis dead is
> considered correct;Englishprofessors will say it, it is said on
> Wikipedia, ... You may argue against it, but you can hardly call it a
> bizarre statement.
>
> **You have not yet named a single source! Even if you had, what do such
> authorities actually say? I propose to you that they likely use large
> amounts of OE to say so. Therefore, you have the logical conundrum of a
> self-defeating use of words. You chose not to reply to what I wrote above=
,
> to prefer abstract authorities and Wikipedia! =A0:)))
>
> To me, it is like arguing about en passant. If you came onto the chess
> newsgroups and started arguing that en passant should not be allowed,
> that it does not fit with other rules of chess, then what you are
> doing is fine. If you, however, knowing that en passant capture is
> considered valid by almost everyone, and then started to berate an
> antagonist in a non-chess newsgroup out of the blue by saying that he
> is so stupid that he believes that in chess there is a rule which
> allows you to capture a piece that is not even on that square, your
> behavior would be incomprehensible. I would not know whether to call
> it stupid, dishonest, or crazy. Bringing this up out of the blue would
> only make you look bad, and that is all bringing up your attacks on
> Neil with regard to the phrase OldEnglishis dead in the chess
> newsgroups does.
>
> I will be happy to never mention your views on OldEnglishin the
> chess newsgroups, if you agree to do the same. No matter which of us
> you think is loopy, surely this is a good deal for everyone?
>
> **Don't be an idiot, man! Why should your lack of content restrict what I
> should say? Why should your absense of logic restrict what I have to writ=
e?
> You are not an objective observer - so stop pretending to be. You also kn=
ow
> nothing yourself, quote no-one, cite no-one, but must intercede on behalf=
of
> a partisan issue here.
>
> =A0 =A0 SPINRADISME
>

**You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as
bent as
a $9 bill.

I'm not sure what he is meaning to say, but I have to give Phil credit
for an amusing phrase here. In case anybody doesn't get it, this is a
twist on the phrase queer as a $3 bill, using the British substitution
of bent for queer in the meaning of homosexual. The juxtaposition with
the notion of bending a bill makes the phrase delightfully absurd.

I will go back to my policy of not commenting on Phil's content; if
any of his supporters think any of it makes sense, they can post
coherent versions and I will be happy to respond to them.

Jerry Spinrad


You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
> Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him to resign.
> !!!!
>
> **When challenged to the logic of that.... zzz =A0 But maybe it says some=
thing
> on Wikipedia about that too, since at least that would save you thinking =
for
> yourself.
>
> **PhilInnes
>
> ---------------
>
> JerrySpinrad
>
>
>
>
>
> > > :))
>
> > > PhilInnes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



    
Date: 01 Aug 2008 12:50:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message

**You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as
bent as
a $9 bill.

---

I'm not sure what he is meaning to say, but I have to give Phil credit
for an amusing phrase here. In case anybody doesn't get it, this is a
twist on the phrase queer as a $3 bill, using the British substitution
of bent for queer in the meaning of homosexual. The juxtaposition with
the notion of bending a bill makes the phrase delightfully absurd.

**But your supposition again, your absurdity! Your trope, and your
association! Why associatiate this with a homosexual referernce? That I
think is what you put into my comment - and entirely your own association.

I will go back to my policy of not commenting on Phil's content;


**Well, commenting on not commenting for the tenth time? ROFL!! Your
not-commentaries are the most arrogant empty nonsense seen in any thread
here for an age - you omit content entirely [admitting you know none] and
logic, always 'not talking' on topic about the issue of Old English is Dead
being an absurd sentence.

if
any of his supporters think any of it makes sense, they can post
coherent versions and I will be happy to respond to them.

**Don't write such fatuous nonsense Spinrad - You declare you can have a
conversation, then contribute nothing to it, then rubbish me. See below! Big
Law Suit! Gettit yet? Look:-

"You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him to
resign."

That is /your/ level of both logic and content orientation. ie NONE. That
you should represent yourself as being able to do either is fatuous. You
have done nothing but abuse public speech here, so take your own advice and
fuck off, and try to keep your self-satisfied amusements at the expense of
others and facts, for those who only think of 'bent' as you do.

Phil Innes

---------


Jerry Spinrad


You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
> Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him to resign.
> !!!!
>
> **When challenged to the logic of that.... zzz But maybe it says something
> on Wikipedia about that too, since at least that would save you thinking
> for
> yourself.
>
> **PhilInnes
>
> ---------------
>
> JerrySpinrad
>
>
>
>
>
> > > :))
>
> > > PhilInnes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




   
Date: 30 Jul 2008 07:00:08
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 29, 2:51 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> I think I will rest my case here. I find what Phil has written to be
> completely crazed, and beyond all argument. If the rest of the world
> thinks otherwise, I am surprised but feel there is nothing more that I
> can say.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

There isn't much else you can do. He'll argue the sky is green till
his teeth fall out.


    
Date: 30 Jul 2008 15:58:45
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jul 29, 2:51 pm, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think I will rest my case here. I find what Phil has written to be
>> completely crazed, and beyond all argument. If the rest of the world
>> thinks otherwise, I am surprised but feel there is nothing more that I
>> can say.
>>
>> Jerry Spinrad
>
> There isn't much else you can do. He'll argue the sky is green till
> his teeth fall out.

I will not argue the sky's colour since it is unnecessary to apothesise a
simple issue, in certainly not in respect of teeth departures [a new
airline?]. Molar 1 leaving from gate 55?

What I have proposed is far less complicated, and I do not argue it, I
propose it is to be a matter of plain logic, and substantiated fact.

If either of you gents care to consider that basis of things, then we will
all move to a post barbrennenistic world, where conversations are held not
in respect to aerial considerations and the fate of one's dentural state.
That, if I may say so, is a tad left-field. I apologise if I inadvertently
insult your normal range of consideration, still, declarations utterly
lacking in content are, let's face it, the laughable realm of politicians
and lawyers.

My apologies if these views seem obscure to either of you, but very many
people have concluded this is sensible [to mention facts as such rather than
one's opinion absent any facts].

If Jerry Spinrad considers himself rather above ordinary conversation, and
whatever he references above to be beyond his ken, then I must in turn
suggest that he remain in the 100 acre wood with Eyeore, and abstractly
utter his disdain from that quiet veld, where people do not speak in
compound sentences containing as many as two phrases together.

After all, he is someone who said that whatever Bill Goichberg wrote in
"secret material" could not possibly be reason for him to resign. Even
thought the Princeton bloke admits not knowing their content.

How could anyone be insulted by that degree of discrimination?

Cordially, Phil Innes




   
Date: 29 Jul 2008 12:51:00
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead


On Jul 29, 2:39=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
>
> > > However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insis=
ts
> > > on
> > > using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn=
't
> > > exists?
>
> I suppose that since I started this I must reply. There is an accepted
> meaning of the term dead language, and a standard meaning of the term
> Old English. If you want to argue about that meanings on a linguistics
> newsgroup, that is absolutely appropriate.
>
> **Get off it Spinrad! What a bunch of abstract codswallop! Using 4 words =
of
> a 'dead' language to declare the language dead is a LOGICAL aburdity. But
> you do not address that - neither the extancy of OE in current English. I=
n
> fact you address no specific point at all. You simply concur with people =
who
> deny that the 100 most used current words of English are all Old English.
> Therefore, absent facts, you are free to say what you wish! And like Bren=
nen
> has done, said so with many words of OE - or Anglo Saxon as those in the
> know often say.
>
> =A0However, you have to know
> by now that in standard usage, the phrase Old English is dead is
> considered correct; English professors will say it, it is said on
> Wikipedia, ... You may argue against it, but you can hardly call it a
> bizarre statement.
>
> **You have not yet named a single source! Even if you had, what do such
> authorities actually say? I propose to you that they likely use large
> amounts of OE to say so. Therefore, you have the logical conundrum of a
> self-defeating use of words. You chose not to reply to what I wrote above=
,
> to prefer abstract authorities and Wikipedia! =A0:)))
>
> To me, it is like arguing about en passant. If you came onto the chess
> newsgroups and started arguing that en passant should not be allowed,
> that it does not fit with other rules of chess, then what you are
> doing is fine. If you, however, knowing that en passant capture is
> considered valid by almost everyone, and then started to berate an
> antagonist in a non-chess newsgroup out of the blue by saying that he
> is so stupid that he believes that in chess there is a rule which
> allows you to capture a piece that is not even on that square, your
> behavior would be incomprehensible. I would not know whether to call
> it stupid, dishonest, or crazy. Bringing this up out of the blue would
> only make you look bad, and that is all bringing up your attacks on
> Neil with regard to the phrase Old English is dead in the chess
> newsgroups does.
>
> I will be happy to never mention your views on Old English in the
> chess newsgroups, if you agree to do the same. No matter which of us
> you think is loopy, surely this is a good deal for everyone?
>
> **Don't be an idiot, man! Why should your lack of content restrict what I
> should say? Why should your absense of logic restrict what I have to writ=
e?
> You are not an objective observer - so stop pretending to be. You also kn=
ow
> nothing yourself, quote no-one, cite no-one, but must intercede on behalf=
of
> a partisan issue here.
>
> =A0 =A0 SPINRADISME
>
> **You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as bent =
as
> a $9 bill. You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
> Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him to resign.
> !!!!
>
> **When challenged to the logic of that.... zzz =A0 But maybe it says some=
thing
> on Wikipedia about that too, since at least that would save you thinking =
for
> yourself.
>
> **Phil Innes
>

I think I will rest my case here. I find what Phil has written to be
completely crazed, and beyond all argument. If the rest of the world
thinks otherwise, I am surprised but feel there is nothing more that I
can say.

Jerry Spinrad

> ---------------
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
>
>
> > > :))
>
> > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



   
Date: 29 Jul 2008 08:16:44
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 29, 8:11=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
> This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
> Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
> Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
> department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
> expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
> say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
> you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
> told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
> what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.
>
> **Jerry Spinrad's 'English department' bloke doesn't seem to comment on t=
he
> fact that the words used are old English. Which is very peculiar! But
> perhaps this 'English' department bloke didn't know they were. That would
> have been a better question: What is the root language of 'Old English is
> dead'?
>
> This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
> right in the context of the particular discussion,
>
> **That's right. Your bloke didn't know, did he Jerry.
>
> but at least
> suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
> ignorance.
>
> **It does 'suggest' it? I wonder if this bloke of Jerry's would accord wi=
th
> the very top linguists in the world who say that the most used 100 words =
in
> English are ALL Anglo Saxon?
>
> =A0 =A0 THE BATTLE OF LEXICON
>
> **Jerry's friend reminds me of the inverse of the Monthy Python sketch, w=
ith
> 'this Parrot is Dead'. I wonder if he would care to campel [OE] and actua=
lly
> not render an opinion, but render us his lexicon? I am not expressing an
> opinion, I am stating that those 4 words are old English, and opinion
> neither makes them so or otherwise. Similarly that the most used words in
> the English language are still A. Sax.
>
> =A0Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
> can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.
>
> =A0 =A0 JERRY WANTS MORE!
>
> **Is that an invitation. OKAY!! So Neil Brennen stalked me to a Celtic
> newsgroup and teamed up with a linguist there to refute my suggestion tha=
t
> there was a pan-Celtic iconography. Which is only to say that similar
> symbols were used across half a dozen Celtic regions in the UK and
> Brittanny. She decided there was not - and it was absurd to suggest it. B=
ut
> when I asked this linguist if she had ever heard of cup-and-ring marks
> [about 50,000 in UK] she said no. She had also never heard of serpent ico=
ns,
> single or twinned or twining. She had never heard of the equal armed
> pre-Christian Celtic cross - and despite being a 'linguist' was unaware t=
hat
> Book of Kells, eg, employed all these icons in that famous book. She had
> never heard of Aidan Meehan who has written [I think] 12 books now on the
> subject, and who regularly lectures on their factualness, construction
> method, and inner design.
>
> **Yet Brennen incited this person who admitted no knowledge whatever to D=
ENY
> what she admitted she didn't know, and then they both set about rubbishin=
g
> me.
>
> **Now - this is but ONE example of an idiocy so complete and malicious - =
its
> not discussion at all. Dr. Spinrad suggest it is, but it is plain ignorna=
ce
> to write on subjects of which you know nothing - thenm malign others for
> their understanding of KNOWN facts.
>
> I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
> English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
> ridiculous.
>
> Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
> language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
> linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
> language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
> something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
> leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
> English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
> although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
> into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
> the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
> languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
> happened to Latin, which
>
> **Jerry, the 100 MOST USED words in English today are Old English. Not on=
e
> of them is Latin, which is to say that Latin really is a dead language, e=
ven
> though Latin is adopted into English in many forms. Old English never die=
d
> at all. Moreover, more people now speak English than any other language.
> Every word Armstrong spoke in his announcement on landing on the Moon wer=
e
> Old English, and the 50 words Churchill spoke [save the last, 'surrrender=
']
> on his famous 'beaches' speech are also Old English. That is to say, no
> Latin, French German Anglo Norman, nor aught else.
>
> **There is no argument about spelling - which may or may not have changed
> over time, and was in fact not unified on the Island until the C10th by
> Alfred. Neither are lexiconographic factors possible since we do not have
> anyt record of spoken OE with which to compare that with any current
> speech - that is, if it ever changed at all.
>
> **By abstraction and his consultation, Jerry Spinrad seems to have cast
> doubt on the fact that proclaiming Old English is dead USING 4 words of O=
E
> to say so, is not a logical absurdity.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Jul 27, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable =
of
> > >> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been
> > >> given
> > >> a
> > >> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> > > The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
> > > learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
>
> > I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that
> > sentence,
> > or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
>
> > Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
> > [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>
> > But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
>
> > "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
>
> > I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
> > actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
> > occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
> > creation:
>
> > That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current
> > cause
> > of my merriment.
>
> > Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, rat=
her
> > than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
> > unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
> > there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not =
a
> > word being spelled variously in the same document.
>
> > However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists=
on
> > using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
> > exists?

I suppose that since I started this I must reply. There is an accepted
meaning of the term dead language, and a standard meaning of the term
Old English. If you want to argue about that meanings on a linguistics
newsgroup, that is absolutely appropriate. However, you have to know
by now that in standard usage, the phrase Old English is dead is
considered correct; English professors will say it, it is said on
Wikipedia, ... You may argue against it, but you can hardly call it a
bizarre statement.

To me, it is like arguing about en passant. If you came onto the chess
newsgroups and started arguing that en passant should not be allowed,
that it does not fit with other rules of chess, then what you are
doing is fine. If you, however, knowing that en passant capture is
considered valid by almost everyone, and then started to berate an
antagonist in a non-chess newsgroup out of the blue by saying that he
is so stupid that he believes that in chess there is a rule which
allows you to capture a piece that is not even on that square, your
behavior would be incomprehensible. I would not know whether to call
it stupid, dishonest, or crazy. Bringing this up out of the blue would
only make you look bad, and that is all bringing up your attacks on
Neil with regard to the phrase Old English is dead in the chess
newsgroups does.

I will be happy to never mention your views on Old English in the
chess newsgroups, if you agree to do the same. No matter which of us
you think is loopy, surely this is a good deal for everyone?

Jerry Spinrad


>
> > :))
>
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



    
Date: 29 Jul 2008 15:39:57
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...

> > However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists
> > on
> > using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
> > exists?

I suppose that since I started this I must reply. There is an accepted
meaning of the term dead language, and a standard meaning of the term
Old English. If you want to argue about that meanings on a linguistics
newsgroup, that is absolutely appropriate.

**Get off it Spinrad! What a bunch of abstract codswallop! Using 4 words of
a 'dead' language to declare the language dead is a LOGICAL aburdity. But
you do not address that - neither the extancy of OE in current English. In
fact you address no specific point at all. You simply concur with people who
deny that the 100 most used current words of English are all Old English.
Therefore, absent facts, you are free to say what you wish! And like Brennen
has done, said so with many words of OE - or Anglo Saxon as those in the
know often say.

However, you have to know
by now that in standard usage, the phrase Old English is dead is
considered correct; English professors will say it, it is said on
Wikipedia, ... You may argue against it, but you can hardly call it a
bizarre statement.

**You have not yet named a single source! Even if you had, what do such
authorities actually say? I propose to you that they likely use large
amounts of OE to say so. Therefore, you have the logical conundrum of a
self-defeating use of words. You chose not to reply to what I wrote above,
to prefer abstract authorities and Wikipedia! :)))

To me, it is like arguing about en passant. If you came onto the chess
newsgroups and started arguing that en passant should not be allowed,
that it does not fit with other rules of chess, then what you are
doing is fine. If you, however, knowing that en passant capture is
considered valid by almost everyone, and then started to berate an
antagonist in a non-chess newsgroup out of the blue by saying that he
is so stupid that he believes that in chess there is a rule which
allows you to capture a piece that is not even on that square, your
behavior would be incomprehensible. I would not know whether to call
it stupid, dishonest, or crazy. Bringing this up out of the blue would
only make you look bad, and that is all bringing up your attacks on
Neil with regard to the phrase Old English is dead in the chess
newsgroups does.

I will be happy to never mention your views on Old English in the
chess newsgroups, if you agree to do the same. No matter which of us
you think is loopy, surely this is a good deal for everyone?

**Don't be an idiot, man! Why should your lack of content restrict what I
should say? Why should your absense of logic restrict what I have to write?
You are not an objective observer - so stop pretending to be. You also know
nothing yourself, quote no-one, cite no-one, but must intercede on behalf of
a partisan issue here.

SPINRADISME

**You should not be writing histories of anything, since you are as bent as
a $9 bill. You yourself commit the idiocy of declaring that whatever Bill
Goichberg wrote in his 'secret material' is no reason for him to resign.
!!!!

**When challenged to the logic of that.... zzz But maybe it says something
on Wikipedia about that too, since at least that would save you thinking for
yourself.

**Phil Innes


---------------



Jerry Spinrad


>
> > :))
>
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




     
Date: 29 Jul 2008 12:54:29
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:39:57 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:


>What a bunch of abstract codswallop! Using 4 words of
>a 'dead' language to declare the language dead is a LOGICAL aburdity.

If I acquire four dollars that once belonged to Enron, does that mean
they're not bankrupt?

If Mayo does a cornea transplant from a corpse to Phil Innes (so he
will no longer be confused with the blind monkey), does that mean the
cadaver lives?

Learn to reason by analogy, man. It will serve you well.



      
Date: 30 Jul 2008 09:57:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:39:57 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>What a bunch of abstract codswallop! Using 4 words of
>>a 'dead' language to declare the language dead is a LOGICAL aburdity.
>
> If I acquire four dollars that once belonged to Enron, does that mean
> they're not bankrupt?

Wrong construct: you should ask about the subject matter [dollars] if,
having belonged to Enron, are they still dollars? [same subject].

You confound the subject with the object of your sentence.

> If Mayo does a cornea transplant from a corpse to Phil Innes (so he
> will no longer be confused with the blind monkey), does that mean the
> cadaver lives?
>
> Learn to reason by analogy, man. It will serve you well.

Reason? ROFL.

Phil Innes




       
Date: 30 Jul 2008 10:07:20
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:57:06 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:


>> If I acquire four dollars that once belonged to Enron, does that mean
>> they're not bankrupt?

>Wrong construct: you should ask about the subject matter [dollars] if,
>having belonged to Enron, are they still dollars? [same subject].

>You confound the subject with the object of your sentence.

Good suggestion. Rewording: "If I acquire four dollars that once
belonged to Enron, can I infer that Enron is not bankrupt?" How's
that?


   
Date: 28 Jul 2008 06:05:21
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 28, 1:43 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:06 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 1:27 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not seem to
> > > >>>>>> change. Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, personal
> > > >>>>>> attacks, and mudslinging.
> > > >>>>> Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I refrain
> > > >>>>> from answering it for your sake?
> > > >>>> You work on that and let us know.
> > > >>> Not much work to do. I don't take direction from the mail-order
> > > >>> Reverend. Especially when he's wrong.
> > > >> You asked; I answered. It is not an unusual occurrence in conversation.
>
> > > >> As for your comment about my religion, I already expect this kind of
> > > >> behavior from you. Go ahead, prove my case.
>
> > > > You've proved mine. I made no comment about your "religion", whatever
> > > > it may be. I commented on your "credentials" as a clergyman.
>
> > > Okay. Why? What do you hope to gain by diverting the conversation
> > > towards credentials?
>
> > > >>>>> It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
> > > >>>>>> good for. I hope not.
> > > >>>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
> > > >>>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. And this is a general
> > > >>>> comment on all participants.
>
> > I for one had no trouble whatever in
> > understanding Dr. IMnes' comments
> > regarding the English language,
> > including his point that old English
> > has not "died", but rather it has
> > evolved into modern English. Indeed,
> > the attacks on the nearly-an-IM 2450
> > /on this score/ are just plain silly; the
> > attempt to recruit "authorities" in this
> > vein, pathetic.
>
> It would be understandable if Neil was bringing the subject up to
> ridicule him; I could understand Phil defending his interpretation,
> even if that is going against standard usage of the term dead
> language. However, Phil uses this out of the blue to attack Neil with
> the post
>
> > Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> > stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given a
> > name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> Why would Phil harp on this of all points? I agree that this issue is
> unimportant; my original comment was made in the hope that Phil would
> simply stop interjecting this strange argument into the chess
> newsgroup. It is only after I found that Phil had been told very
> explicitly in other groups that his usage was considered incorrect
> that it occurred to me just how bizarre it was for him to use it to
> attack Neil; I still find it almost impossible to believe.
>
> If the result is that Phil shuts up about old English on this group,
> this will be a minor good point to come out of my comment. And if he
> is mocked a bit in the bargain, I feel confident that on this score he
> has earned it.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

P Innes' statements about Old English are part of a long chain of
language eccentricity he's woven through Usenet. Before that there was
the alleged "George Orwell" quotation he fabricated. There's also his
various claims about Russian, 'Andean' Spanish, Celtic, a variety of
garbled translations, etc. He's either a nutter or a troll of the
first magnitude.Or both.

The fact that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong willing associate with such
a person is yet another blotch on their reputations.


   
Date: 28 Jul 2008 00:33:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 28, 2:43=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> It would be understandable if Neil was bringing the subject up to
> ridicule him; I could understand Phil defending his interpretation,
> even if that is going against standard usage of the term dead
> language.

The way in which the "question" was posed
to a supposed authority was unsatisfying
(much like a Coke or Pepsi to a dehydrated
athlete). Likewise, the answer itself was
inconclusive, apart from its attempt to
enlighten the question-asker of the vital
importance of /context/.


> However, Phil uses this out of the blue to attack Neil with
> the post
>
> > Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> > stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been give=
n a
> > name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> Why would Phil harp on this of all points?

PI's attacks on NB's former weight are
perhaps considered politically incorrect
and make him look bad.
PI's attacks on NB's chess rating have
come under fire as well, for their obvious
snobbery, which makes him look bad.


> I agree that this issue is
> unimportant; my original comment was made in the hope that Phil would
> simply stop interjecting this strange argument into the chess
> newsgroup. It is only after I found that Phil had been told very
> explicitly in other groups that his usage was considered incorrect
> that it occurred to me just how bizarre it was for him to use it to
> attack Neil; I still find it almost impossible to believe.

I'm a bit confused; this is the same guy
who proclaimed that he was nearly an IM
with a rating of 2450, and when caught in
his bold lie, /blamed those who noticed it/.
In view of these facts, how hard can it be
to believe?


> If the result is that Phil shuts up about old English on this group,
> this will be a minor good point to come out of my comment. And if he
> is mocked a bit in the bargain, I feel confident that on this score he
> has earned it.

Look, these so-called authorities who
make proclamations are often as daft as
two short planks. If they wish to insist
that old English is "dead", let them try
to explain why the name was not then
changed to, say, Andean, instead of
modern English. (A "dead" limb does
not produce living off-shoots, nor leaves.)

These authorities once proclaimed that
the planets revolved around the earth
(with a small "e", to denote their
ignorance of the concept of planets, in
addition to so many other things). One
story has it that a group of learned
academicians beat and expelled a man
for suggesting that they /simply count/
the teeth in a real horse's head, rather
than argue about what Aristotle wrote
about the matter; these are the sort of
men you are looking to for guidance?

There are plenty of very *real* problems
with our nearly-an-IM; what need is there
then to pick at his merely peculiar
beliefs? I am reminded of Mr. Parr and
his peculiar beliefs regarding WWII (not
to be confused with the Great War). I
liked the conspiracy theory which had
the President tricking us into the war
by allowing the Japanese to "surprise"
attack and thus provide a pretext and
shift the blame for starting the war to
them. Certainly, the lame excuses of
Nick Bourbaki and his thousands of
respected academicians did not
impress, except in their think-alike
robotic mindlessness.

Surely, the real elephant in the room
here is the titanic hypocrisy of nearly-
IMnes and his apologists pointing
fingers at NB and others for crimes
they themselves commit routinely. As
we see in Dr. Blair's recounting, the
poor chap, nearly-IMnes, not only is an
abusive ad hominist in his own right, but
he often gets confused as to the identity
of his intended abuse-targets.


-- help bot





   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 23:43:22
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 28, 1:06=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:27=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>>>>> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not seem =
to
> > >>>>>> change. =A0Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, pe=
rsonal
> > >>>>>> attacks, and mudslinging.
> > >>>>> Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I refra=
in
> > >>>>> from answering it for your sake?
> > >>>> You work on that and let us know.
> > >>> Not much work to do. I don't take direction from the mail-order
> > >>> Reverend. Especially when he's wrong.
> > >> You asked; I answered. =A0It is not an unusual occurrence in convers=
ation.
>
> > >> As for your comment about my religion, I already expect this kind of
> > >> behavior from you. =A0Go ahead, prove my case.
>
> > > You've proved mine. I made no comment about your "religion", whatever
> > > it may be. I commented on your "credentials" as a clergyman.
>
> > Okay. =A0Why? =A0What do you hope to gain by diverting the conversation
> > towards credentials?
>
> > >>>>> It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
> > >>>>>> good for. =A0I hope not.
> > >>>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
> > >>>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. =A0And this is a gener=
al
> > >>>> comment on all participants.
>
> =A0 I for one had no trouble whatever in
> understanding Dr. IMnes' comments
> regarding the English language,
> including his point that old English
> has not "died", but rather it has
> evolved into modern English. =A0Indeed,
> the attacks on the nearly-an-IM 2450
> /on this score/ are just plain silly; the
> attempt to recruit "authorities" in this
> vein, pathetic.

It would be understandable if Neil was bringing the subject up to
ridicule him; I could understand Phil defending his interpretation,
even if that is going against standard usage of the term dead
language. However, Phil uses this out of the blue to attack Neil with
the post

> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given =
a
> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.

Why would Phil harp on this of all points? I agree that this issue is
unimportant; my original comment was made in the hope that Phil would
simply stop interjecting this strange argument into the chess
newsgroup. It is only after I found that Phil had been told very
explicitly in other groups that his usage was considered incorrect
that it occurred to me just how bizarre it was for him to use it to
attack Neil; I still find it almost impossible to believe.

If the result is that Phil shuts up about old English on this group,
this will be a minor good point to come out of my comment. And if he
is mocked a bit in the bargain, I feel confident that on this score he
has earned it.

Jerry Spinrad




>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> =A0 But as for singling out Mr. Brennen
> as a mudslinger, personal-attacker
> and sewer of strife-- that is equally
> ludicrous. =A0If indeed the Reverend
> Walker wishes to be taken seriously,
> he would do better to stop harrying
> only those who disapprove of the
> nearly-an-IM's antics, and instead try
> to apply himself in a fair-and-balanced
> manner to everyone who violates his
> /purported/ standards. =A0I won't bother
> to mention the fact that for every
> "seed of strife" harvested by the
> nearly-an-IM, he sews a handful of
> his own, since that is *self-evident*.
>
> =A0 Indeed, one need look no further
> than the now-famous thread in which
> Sir Dr. IMnes laid claim to his title
> and FIDE-rating for a classic example
> of him laying on the mud and patting
> it down, hot and heavy; and who
> should our good friend, IM Innes, 2450,
> have targeted in that very same thread
> but Mr. Brennen-- who was berated for
> having a (real) USCF rating of medium
> grade. =A0Well, ever since (and probably
> before) that happened, the two of them
> have been going at it, tooth and nail--
> yet the good Reverend seems blind as
> a mole-bat to the actions of one, but
> not the other! =A0'Tis a shameful sight to
> behold, personal bias and bigotry is.
>
> =A0 If this were the very first "sighting", we
> might be inclined to forgive (but not
> forget); but alas, the Reverend has been
> advised before, yet he stubbornly
> persists in his wayward ways, in this
> heavy-handed personal bias. =A0I make
> this post, not to "attack" or ridicule the
> good Reverend, but to advise him that
> his trickery, his preferential treatment
> of one poor sinner over another, is
> obvious to all but the most obtuse
> readers here (indeed, there are many).
>
> =A0 My great-great- ...great-grand-bot,Sun Tsu-bot once wrote: "seize the
>
> (moral) high ground!" =A0But this of
> course is impossible under these
> circumstances, where one fellow is
> given a free pass while others are
> taken to task for the very same
> crimes. =A0Like King Solomon, you
> must first /earn/ the respect of the
> people, and /only then/ take men to
> task for their many sins; and how do
> you earn that respect? =A0By
> demonstrating fairness-- not by
> singling out NB, just because he is
> an ornery old cuss (or because you
> for some reason wish to exempt the
> like sins of nearly-IMnes).
>
> =A0Is fairness too much to ask? =A0We
> shall see... .
>
> =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 23:06:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 28, 1:27=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:

> >>>>>> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not seem to
> >>>>>> change. =A0Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, pers=
onal
> >>>>>> attacks, and mudslinging.
> >>>>> Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I refrain
> >>>>> from answering it for your sake?
> >>>> You work on that and let us know.
> >>> Not much work to do. I don't take direction from the mail-order
> >>> Reverend. Especially when he's wrong.
> >> You asked; I answered. =A0It is not an unusual occurrence in conversat=
ion.
>
> >> As for your comment about my religion, I already expect this kind of
> >> behavior from you. =A0Go ahead, prove my case.
>
> > You've proved mine. I made no comment about your "religion", whatever
> > it may be. I commented on your "credentials" as a clergyman.
>
> Okay. =A0Why? =A0What do you hope to gain by diverting the conversation
> towards credentials?
>
> >>>>> It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
> >>>>>> good for. =A0I hope not.
> >>>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
> >>>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. =A0And this is a general
> >>>> comment on all participants.


I for one had no trouble whatever in
understanding Dr. IMnes' comments
regarding the English language,
including his point that old English
has not "died", but rather it has
evolved into modern English. Indeed,
the attacks on the nearly-an-IM 2450
/on this score/ are just plain silly; the
attempt to recruit "authorities" in this
vein, pathetic.

------------------------------------------------------

But as for singling out Mr. Brennen
as a mudslinger, personal-attacker
and sewer of strife-- that is equally
ludicrous. If indeed the Reverend
Walker wishes to be taken seriously,
he would do better to stop harrying
only those who disapprove of the
nearly-an-IM's antics, and instead try
to apply himself in a fair-and-balanced
manner to everyone who violates his
/purported/ standards. I won't bother
to mention the fact that for every
"seed of strife" harvested by the
nearly-an-IM, he sews a handful of
his own, since that is *self-evident*.

Indeed, one need look no further
than the now-famous thread in which
Sir Dr. IMnes laid claim to his title
and FIDE-rating for a classic example
of him laying on the mud and patting
it down, hot and heavy; and who
should our good friend, IM Innes, 2450,
have targeted in that very same thread
but Mr. Brennen-- who was berated for
having a (real) USCF rating of medium
grade. Well, ever since (and probably
before) that happened, the two of them
have been going at it, tooth and nail--
yet the good Reverend seems blind as
a mole-bat to the actions of one, but
not the other! 'Tis a shameful sight to
behold, personal bias and bigotry is.

If this were the very first "sighting", we
might be inclined to forgive (but not
forget); but alas, the Reverend has been
advised before, yet he stubbornly
persists in his wayward ways, in this
heavy-handed personal bias. I make
this post, not to "attack" or ridicule the
good Reverend, but to advise him that
his trickery, his preferential treatment
of one poor sinner over another, is
obvious to all but the most obtuse
readers here (indeed, there are many).

My great-great- ...great-grand-bot,
Sun Tsu-bot once wrote: "seize the
(moral) high ground!" But this of
course is impossible under these
circumstances, where one fellow is
given a free pass while others are
taken to task for the very same
crimes. Like King Solomon, you
must first /earn/ the respect of the
people, and /only then/ take men to
task for their many sins; and how do
you earn that respect? By
demonstrating fairness-- not by
singling out NB, just because he is
an ornery old cuss (or because you
for some reason wish to exempt the
like sins of nearly-IMnes).

Is fairness too much to ask? We
shall see... .


-- help bot












    
Date: 27 Jul 2008 23:12:50
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead -- Special Reading Assistance for Greg Kennedy
help bot wrote:
<snip >

>>>>>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
>>>>>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. And this is a general
>>>>>> comment on *ALL* participants.

(emphasis added)
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


     
Date: 28 Jul 2008 10:31:51
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead -- Special Reading Assistance for Greg Kennedy
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:12:50 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>>>>>>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
>>>>>>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. And this is a general
>>>>>>> comment on *ALL* participants.

>(emphasis added)

Your note on one of the positive aspects of this group provides
welcome contrast to the oft-heard denigration from the more
"respectable" posters over in USCF or ChessDiscussion lands.

Reminds me of grade school Montana summers when a bunch of us would
head out on hot days to "Bare-butt creek", a man-made cow wallow in
Slim Christophersen's pasture, where we'd amuse ourselves by scooping
up glop from the bottom of the greenish-brown water, and hurling it at
each other. It provided valuable lessons in keeping one's mouth shut
and eyes closed at critical moments.


      
Date: 28 Jul 2008 11:16:37
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead -- Special Reading Assistance for Greg Kennedy
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:12:50 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
>>>>>>>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. And this is a general
>>>>>>>> comment on *ALL* participants.
>
>> (emphasis added)
>
> Your note on one of the positive aspects of this group provides
> welcome contrast to the oft-heard denigration from the more
> "respectable" posters over in USCF or ChessDiscussion lands.
>
> Reminds me of grade school Montana summers when a bunch of us would
> head out on hot days to "Bare-butt creek", a man-made cow wallow in
> Slim Christophersen's pasture, where we'd amuse ourselves by scooping
> up glop from the bottom of the greenish-brown water, and hurling it at
> each other. It provided valuable lessons in keeping one's mouth shut
> and eyes closed at critical moments.

Ah yes... I remember from my grade school days -- the neighborhood
rotten apple wars. We learned similar lessons. Of course most of us
learned the larger lesson of not participating in such events in the
first place when we grew up. I suppose some never outgrew it.

I do not like censorship. I no longer participate in Susan's
blog/forum. I would quit visiting the USCF forum as well, except, as a
non-member, I never started there.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 22:05:34
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 27, 8:58 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 8:37 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The Historian wrote:
> >>> On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> The Historian wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not seem to
> >>>> change. Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, personal
> >>>> attacks, and mudslinging.
> >>> Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I refrain
> >>> from answering it for your sake?
> >> You work on that and let us know.
>
> > Not much work to do. I don't take direction from the mail-order
> > Reverend. Especially when he's wrong.
>
> You asked; I answered. It is not an unusual occurrence in conversation.
>
> As for your comment about my religion, I already expect this kind of
> behavior from you. Go ahead, prove my case.

You've proved mine. I made no comment about your "religion", whatever
it may be. I commented on your "credentials" as a clergyman.

> >>> It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
> >>>> good for. I hope not.
> >> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
> >> professionals join you in this mudslinging. And this is a general
> >> comment on all participants.
>
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker



    
Date: 27 Jul 2008 22:27:05
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
The Historian wrote:
> On Jul 27, 8:58 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 8:37 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not seem to
>>>>>> change. Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, personal
>>>>>> attacks, and mudslinging.
>>>>> Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I refrain
>>>>> from answering it for your sake?
>>>> You work on that and let us know.
>>> Not much work to do. I don't take direction from the mail-order
>>> Reverend. Especially when he's wrong.
>> You asked; I answered. It is not an unusual occurrence in conversation.
>>
>> As for your comment about my religion, I already expect this kind of
>> behavior from you. Go ahead, prove my case.
>
> You've proved mine. I made no comment about your "religion", whatever
> it may be. I commented on your "credentials" as a clergyman.

Okay. Why? What do you hope to gain by diverting the conversation
towards credentials?

>>>>> It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
>>>>>> good for. I hope not.

>>>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
>>>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. And this is a general
>>>> comment on all participants.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 21:45:24
From: PB
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 27, 4:26=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
> [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>
>
Phil: I'm afraid I have to pick you up on an incorrect etymology.
By chance I have a very little Greek and just a little Danish so I
noticed this example.
Although 'lego' is indeed a transliteration of the Greek 'I speak',
that's not the etymology of the name of the game you refer to:
"The founder, Ole Kirk Christiansen, hit upon the LEGO=AE name in 1934.
He took the first two letters of the Danish words LEG GODT, meaning
=93play well=94, and put them together =96
quite unaware that one meaning of the word in Latin is ... =93I put
together=94.
(quoted from www.lego.com)

Sincerely
Paul Buswell


    
Date: 29 Jul 2008 07:19:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead

"PB" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
On Jul 27, 4:26 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
> [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>
>
Phil: I'm afraid I have to pick you up on an incorrect etymology.
By chance I have a very little Greek and just a little Danish so I
noticed this example.
Although 'lego' is indeed a transliteration of the Greek 'I speak',
that's not the etymology of the name of the game you refer to:

**of course what Paul says here is true - i am just punning a little on the
word to adjust it to neil's level.

**i haven't yet read all these entires, so i am curious about his
apprehension of his own sentence, a language is not its lexicon - which is a
reply he has used, methinks once more without understanding the words he has
used, indeed to explain the title of this thread.

**does anyone, btw, know a name given to that coining? to use words which
themselves disprove the sentence they comprise? in this case 4 old english
words are necessary to declare themselves non-existant. but what do we call
that? it is not an oxymoron, which suggests a different sort of
impossibility. Perhaps I will have the honour of naming a new construction?
:))

** Certainly "amoronism" is a strong candidate, but I am leaning toward
honouring its inventor with the term, "barbrennenism", and it might even
catch on if I could launch a national campaign in the New York Times or even
London Times inviting people to create something more 'barbrennic' than the
orginator. The prize could be... a Lego set!

"The founder, Ole Kirk Christiansen, hit upon the LEGO® name in 1934.
He took the first two letters of the Danish words LEG GODT, meaning
“play well”, and put them together –
quite unaware that one meaning of the word in Latin is ... “I put
together”.
(quoted from www.lego.com)

**yes, i think this is correct. our ex-review editor Dr. Jens Madsen was a
Dane, and I remember him mentioning Lego the game. When I was a kid there
was some knock-off version [cheaper bricks] called betta-builder
[spelling?]. Seems like every male child had either that or Meccano
[spelling?] which in US is called an erector set.

**Cordially, Phil

Sincerely
Paul Buswell




   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 18:43:25
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 27, 8:37 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The Historian wrote:
> >>> On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not seem to
> >> change. Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, personal
> >> attacks, and mudslinging.
>
> > Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I refrain
> > from answering it for your sake?
>
> You work on that and let us know.

Not much work to do. I don't take direction from the mail-order
Reverend. Especially when he's wrong.

> > It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
> >> good for. I hope not.
>
> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
> professionals join you in this mudslinging. And this is a general
> comment on all participants.
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker



    
Date: 27 Jul 2008 18:58:03
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
The Historian wrote:
> On Jul 27, 8:37 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not seem to
>>>> change. Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, personal
>>>> attacks, and mudslinging.
>>> Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I refrain
>>> from answering it for your sake?
>> You work on that and let us know.
>
> Not much work to do. I don't take direction from the mail-order
> Reverend. Especially when he's wrong.

You asked; I answered. It is not an unusual occurrence in conversation.

As for your comment about my religion, I already expect this kind of
behavior from you. Go ahead, prove my case.

>>> It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
>>>> good for. I hope not.
>> What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
>> professionals join you in this mudslinging. And this is a general
>> comment on all participants.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 18:24:48
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Jul 27, 11:15 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 27, 10:59 am, "[email protected]"
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
> >>>>> Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
> >>>>> Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
> >>>>> department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
> >>>>> expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
> >>>>> say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
> >>>>> you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
> >>>>> told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
> >>>>> what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.
> >>>>> This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
> >>>>> right in the context of the particular discussion, but at least
> >>>>> suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
> >>>>> ignorance. Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
> >>>>> can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.
> >>>> Let's include another Dr,'s opinion, Dr. Peter Groves of Monash
> >>>> University, Australia:
> >>>> "Innes' nonsense has been corrected so often that it has become
> >>>> tiresome, and
> >>>> yet he seems incapable of learning. He must, I suppose, be a troll,
> >>>> because no-one as stupid as he pretends to be could survive without
> >>>> institutional care."
> >>>> And:
> >>>> "I find it hard to believe that even on hlas we have quite such an
> >>>> imbecile
> >>>> among us. If you *really* need it spelt out, moron, ask yourself
> >>>> whether
> >>>> the inhabitants of modern Paris speak Latin. For homework, try to
> >>>> work out
> >>>> what this question has to do with your cretinous "thesis". "
> >>>> And Dr. David Webb, Dartmouth University:
> >>>> "It has been explained to Mr. Innes many times -- patiently, in
> >>>> painstaking detail, repeatedly, by numerous people, and in words of as
> >>>> few syllables as possible, in order to facilitate his possible
> >>>> comprehension -- that a natural language is much more than its stock
> >>>> of
> >>>> words. But since he persists in believing that when George W. Bush
> >>>> utters the word "vodka," he is speaking Russian, it is scarcely
> >>>> surprising that recondite subtleties such as grammatical structure and
> >>>> syntax are utterly lost upon Mr. Innes. (Apparently, the British
> >>>> language possesses no such structure, as can be confidently inferred
> >>>> from Mr. Innes's prose.) "
> >>>>> I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
> >>>>> English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
> >>>>> ridiculous.
> >>>>> Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
> >>>>> language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
> >>>>> linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
> >>>>> language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
> >>>>> something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
> >>>>> leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
> >>>>> English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
> >>>>> although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
> >>>>> into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
> >>>>> the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
> >>>>> languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
> >>>>> happened to Latin, which
> >>>>> Jerry Spinrad
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> >>>>>>>> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
> >>>>>>> The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
> >>>>>>> learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
> >>>>>> I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that sentence,
> >>>>>> or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
> >>>>>> Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
> >>>>>> [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
> >>>>>> But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
> >>>>>> "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
> >>>>>> I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
> >>>>>> actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
> >>>>>> occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
> >>>>>> creation:
> >>>>>> That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current cause
> >>>>>> of my merriment.
> >>>>>> Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, rather
> >>>>>> than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
> >>>>>> unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
> >>>>>> there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not a
> >>>>>> word being spelled variously in the same document.
> >>>>>> However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists on
> >>>>>> using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
> >>>>>> exists?
> >>>>>> :))
> >>>>>> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> I must admit, this makes me reconsider some things about Phil. It
> >>> isn't that he still contends he is correct, even though people who
> >>> know more than he does on the issue telling him he is wrong; this is
> >>> very standard. But the fact that he volunteers to bring up this issue
> >>> out of the blue to attack Neil is a new level of weirdness. It is as
> >>> though Dan Quayle decided to repeatedly bring up the fact that his
> >>> opponent could not spell potatoes correctly as a reason that he was
> >>> more qualified to be vice president.
> >>> How can anyone explain this behavior? It is certainly stupid, and it
> >>> also strikes me as disingenuous (implying that Neil's opinion on the
> >>> subject had no support, when he knew that many people agreed with his
> >>> statement that old English was dead even if he did not). It is beyond
> >>> that, a level of weirdness that I cannot understand; repeatedly
> >>> raising an issue that can only hurt his credibility. Why would he do
> >>> this? Any theories?
> >>> Jerry Spinrad
> >> The whole thread looks to be a childish waste of time that makes none of
> >> it participants look good.
> >> --
>
> >> "Do that which is right..."
>
> >> Rev. J.D. Walker
>
> > As opposed to "Susan Polgar Promo Video" or rgcp cartoon threads, no
> > doubt.
>
> Neil,
>
> I have gone through a lot of phases since I started reading this
> newsgroup. At one time I thought to try and influence the acrimony in a
> more light-hearted direction. Thus the cartooning attempts. At another
> time I became deeply involved in one of the debates. This had
> unfortunate results. Nevertheless, I have continued to learn more about
> what goes on around here, And I have altered my approach to the whole
> thing.

Which approach would be?

> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not seem to
> change. Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, personal
> attacks, and mudslinging.

Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I refrain
from answering it for your sake?

It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
> good for. I hope not.
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker



    
Date: 27 Jul 2008 18:37:07
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
The Historian wrote:
> On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 27, 11:15 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:59 am, "[email protected]"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
>>>>>>> Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
>>>>>>> Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
>>>>>>> department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
>>>>>>> expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
>>>>>>> say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
>>>>>>> you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
>>>>>>> told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
>>>>>>> what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.
>>>>>>> This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
>>>>>>> right in the context of the particular discussion, but at least
>>>>>>> suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
>>>>>>> ignorance. Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
>>>>>>> can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.
>>>>>> Let's include another Dr,'s opinion, Dr. Peter Groves of Monash
>>>>>> University, Australia:
>>>>>> "Innes' nonsense has been corrected so often that it has become
>>>>>> tiresome, and
>>>>>> yet he seems incapable of learning. He must, I suppose, be a troll,
>>>>>> because no-one as stupid as he pretends to be could survive without
>>>>>> institutional care."
>>>>>> And:
>>>>>> "I find it hard to believe that even on hlas we have quite such an
>>>>>> imbecile
>>>>>> among us. If you *really* need it spelt out, moron, ask yourself
>>>>>> whether
>>>>>> the inhabitants of modern Paris speak Latin. For homework, try to
>>>>>> work out
>>>>>> what this question has to do with your cretinous "thesis". "
>>>>>> And Dr. David Webb, Dartmouth University:
>>>>>> "It has been explained to Mr. Innes many times -- patiently, in
>>>>>> painstaking detail, repeatedly, by numerous people, and in words of as
>>>>>> few syllables as possible, in order to facilitate his possible
>>>>>> comprehension -- that a natural language is much more than its stock
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> words. But since he persists in believing that when George W. Bush
>>>>>> utters the word "vodka," he is speaking Russian, it is scarcely
>>>>>> surprising that recondite subtleties such as grammatical structure and
>>>>>> syntax are utterly lost upon Mr. Innes. (Apparently, the British
>>>>>> language possesses no such structure, as can be confidently inferred
>>>>>> from Mr. Innes's prose.) "
>>>>>>> I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
>>>>>>> English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
>>>>>>> ridiculous.
>>>>>>> Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
>>>>>>> language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
>>>>>>> linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
>>>>>>> language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
>>>>>>> something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
>>>>>>> leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
>>>>>>> English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
>>>>>>> although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
>>>>>>> into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
>>>>>>> the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
>>>>>>> languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
>>>>>>> happened to Latin, which
>>>>>>> Jerry Spinrad
>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
>>>>>>>>>> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>>>>>>>>> The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
>>>>>>>>> learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
>>>>>>>> I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that sentence,
>>>>>>>> or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
>>>>>>>> Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
>>>>>>>> [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>>>>>>>> But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
>>>>>>>> "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
>>>>>>>> I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
>>>>>>>> actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
>>>>>>>> occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
>>>>>>>> creation:
>>>>>>>> That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current cause
>>>>>>>> of my merriment.
>>>>>>>> Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, rather
>>>>>>>> than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
>>>>>>>> unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
>>>>>>>> there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not a
>>>>>>>> word being spelled variously in the same document.
>>>>>>>> However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists on
>>>>>>>> using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
>>>>>>>> exists?
>>>>>>>> :))
>>>>>>>> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> I must admit, this makes me reconsider some things about Phil. It
>>>>> isn't that he still contends he is correct, even though people who
>>>>> know more than he does on the issue telling him he is wrong; this is
>>>>> very standard. But the fact that he volunteers to bring up this issue
>>>>> out of the blue to attack Neil is a new level of weirdness. It is as
>>>>> though Dan Quayle decided to repeatedly bring up the fact that his
>>>>> opponent could not spell potatoes correctly as a reason that he was
>>>>> more qualified to be vice president.
>>>>> How can anyone explain this behavior? It is certainly stupid, and it
>>>>> also strikes me as disingenuous (implying that Neil's opinion on the
>>>>> subject had no support, when he knew that many people agreed with his
>>>>> statement that old English was dead even if he did not). It is beyond
>>>>> that, a level of weirdness that I cannot understand; repeatedly
>>>>> raising an issue that can only hurt his credibility. Why would he do
>>>>> this? Any theories?
>>>>> Jerry Spinrad
>>>> The whole thread looks to be a childish waste of time that makes none of
>>>> it participants look good.
>>>> --
>>>> "Do that which is right..."
>>>> Rev. J.D. Walker
>>> As opposed to "Susan Polgar Promo Video" or rgcp cartoon threads, no
>>> doubt.
>> Neil,
>>
>> I have gone through a lot of phases since I started reading this
>> newsgroup. At one time I thought to try and influence the acrimony in a
>> more light-hearted direction. Thus the cartooning attempts. At another
>> time I became deeply involved in one of the debates. This had
>> unfortunate results. Nevertheless, I have continued to learn more about
>> what goes on around here, And I have altered my approach to the whole
>> thing.
>
> Which approach would be?
>
>> One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not seem to
>> change. Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, personal
>> attacks, and mudslinging.
>
> Hardly. My BS detector is going off constantly here; must I refrain
> from answering it for your sake?

You work on that and let us know.

> It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
>> good for. I hope not.

What amazes me is that highly educated people and respected
professionals join you in this mudslinging. And this is a general
comment on all participants.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 16:36:57
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 11:15 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> On Jul 27, 10:59 am, "[email protected]"
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
> >>> Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
> >>> Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
> >>> department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
> >>> expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
> >>> say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
> >>> you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
> >>> told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
> >>> what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.
> >>> This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
> >>> right in the context of the particular discussion, but at least
> >>> suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
> >>> ignorance. Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
> >>> can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.
> >> Let's include another Dr,'s opinion, Dr. Peter Groves of Monash
> >> University, Australia:
>
> >> "Innes' nonsense has been corrected so often that it has become
> >> tiresome, and
> >> yet he seems incapable of learning. He must, I suppose, be a troll,
> >> because no-one as stupid as he pretends to be could survive without
> >> institutional care."
>
> >> And:
>
> >> "I find it hard to believe that even on hlas we have quite such an
> >> imbecile
> >> among us. If you *really* need it spelt out, moron, ask yourself
> >> whether
> >> the inhabitants of modern Paris speak Latin. For homework, try to
> >> work out
> >> what this question has to do with your cretinous "thesis". "
>
> >> And Dr. David Webb, Dartmouth University:
>
> >> "It has been explained to Mr. Innes many times -- patiently, in
> >> painstaking detail, repeatedly, by numerous people, and in words of as
> >> few syllables as possible, in order to facilitate his possible
> >> comprehension -- that a natural language is much more than its stock
> >> of
> >> words. But since he persists in believing that when George W. Bush
> >> utters the word "vodka," he is speaking Russian, it is scarcely
> >> surprising that recondite subtleties such as grammatical structure and
> >> syntax are utterly lost upon Mr. Innes. (Apparently, the British
> >> language possesses no such structure, as can be confidently inferred
> >> from Mr. Innes's prose.) "
>
> >>> I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
> >>> English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
> >>> ridiculous.
> >>> Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
> >>> language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
> >>> linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
> >>> language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
> >>> something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
> >>> leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
> >>> English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
> >>> although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
> >>> into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
> >>> the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
> >>> languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
> >>> happened to Latin, which
> >>> Jerry Spinrad
> >>> On Jul 27, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> >>>>>> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
> >>>>> The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
> >>>>> learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
> >>>> I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that sentence,
> >>>> or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
> >>>> Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
> >>>> [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
> >>>> But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
> >>>> "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
> >>>> I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
> >>>> actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
> >>>> occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
> >>>> creation:
> >>>> That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current cause
> >>>> of my merriment.
> >>>> Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, rather
> >>>> than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
> >>>> unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
> >>>> there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not a
> >>>> word being spelled variously in the same document.
> >>>> However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists on
> >>>> using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
> >>>> exists?
> >>>> :))
> >>>> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I must admit, this makes me reconsider some things about Phil. It
> > isn't that he still contends he is correct, even though people who
> > know more than he does on the issue telling him he is wrong; this is
> > very standard. But the fact that he volunteers to bring up this issue
> > out of the blue to attack Neil is a new level of weirdness. It is as
> > though Dan Quayle decided to repeatedly bring up the fact that his
> > opponent could not spell potatoes correctly as a reason that he was
> > more qualified to be vice president.
>
> > How can anyone explain this behavior? It is certainly stupid, and it
> > also strikes me as disingenuous (implying that Neil's opinion on the
> > subject had no support, when he knew that many people agreed with his
> > statement that old English was dead even if he did not). It is beyond
> > that, a level of weirdness that I cannot understand; repeatedly
> > raising an issue that can only hurt his credibility. Why would he do
> > this? Any theories?
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> The whole thread looks to be a childish waste of time that makes none of
> it participants look good.
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker

As opposed to "Susan Polgar Promo Video" or rgcp cartoon threads, no
doubt.


    
Date: 27 Jul 2008 17:32:58
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
The Historian wrote:
> On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 11:15 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 27, 10:59 am, "[email protected]"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
>>>>> Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
>>>>> Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
>>>>> department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
>>>>> expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
>>>>> say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
>>>>> you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
>>>>> told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
>>>>> what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.
>>>>> This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
>>>>> right in the context of the particular discussion, but at least
>>>>> suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
>>>>> ignorance. Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
>>>>> can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.
>>>> Let's include another Dr,'s opinion, Dr. Peter Groves of Monash
>>>> University, Australia:
>>>> "Innes' nonsense has been corrected so often that it has become
>>>> tiresome, and
>>>> yet he seems incapable of learning. He must, I suppose, be a troll,
>>>> because no-one as stupid as he pretends to be could survive without
>>>> institutional care."
>>>> And:
>>>> "I find it hard to believe that even on hlas we have quite such an
>>>> imbecile
>>>> among us. If you *really* need it spelt out, moron, ask yourself
>>>> whether
>>>> the inhabitants of modern Paris speak Latin. For homework, try to
>>>> work out
>>>> what this question has to do with your cretinous "thesis". "
>>>> And Dr. David Webb, Dartmouth University:
>>>> "It has been explained to Mr. Innes many times -- patiently, in
>>>> painstaking detail, repeatedly, by numerous people, and in words of as
>>>> few syllables as possible, in order to facilitate his possible
>>>> comprehension -- that a natural language is much more than its stock
>>>> of
>>>> words. But since he persists in believing that when George W. Bush
>>>> utters the word "vodka," he is speaking Russian, it is scarcely
>>>> surprising that recondite subtleties such as grammatical structure and
>>>> syntax are utterly lost upon Mr. Innes. (Apparently, the British
>>>> language possesses no such structure, as can be confidently inferred
>>>> from Mr. Innes's prose.) "
>>>>> I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
>>>>> English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
>>>>> ridiculous.
>>>>> Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
>>>>> language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
>>>>> linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
>>>>> language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
>>>>> something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
>>>>> leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
>>>>> English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
>>>>> although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
>>>>> into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
>>>>> the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
>>>>> languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
>>>>> happened to Latin, which
>>>>> Jerry Spinrad
>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
>>>>>>>> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>>>>>>> The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
>>>>>>> learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
>>>>>> I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that sentence,
>>>>>> or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
>>>>>> Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
>>>>>> [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>>>>>> But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
>>>>>> "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
>>>>>> I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
>>>>>> actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
>>>>>> occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
>>>>>> creation:
>>>>>> That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current cause
>>>>>> of my merriment.
>>>>>> Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, rather
>>>>>> than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
>>>>>> unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
>>>>>> there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not a
>>>>>> word being spelled variously in the same document.
>>>>>> However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists on
>>>>>> using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
>>>>>> exists?
>>>>>> :))
>>>>>> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I must admit, this makes me reconsider some things about Phil. It
>>> isn't that he still contends he is correct, even though people who
>>> know more than he does on the issue telling him he is wrong; this is
>>> very standard. But the fact that he volunteers to bring up this issue
>>> out of the blue to attack Neil is a new level of weirdness. It is as
>>> though Dan Quayle decided to repeatedly bring up the fact that his
>>> opponent could not spell potatoes correctly as a reason that he was
>>> more qualified to be vice president.
>>> How can anyone explain this behavior? It is certainly stupid, and it
>>> also strikes me as disingenuous (implying that Neil's opinion on the
>>> subject had no support, when he knew that many people agreed with his
>>> statement that old English was dead even if he did not). It is beyond
>>> that, a level of weirdness that I cannot understand; repeatedly
>>> raising an issue that can only hurt his credibility. Why would he do
>>> this? Any theories?
>>> Jerry Spinrad
>> The whole thread looks to be a childish waste of time that makes none of
>> it participants look good.
>> --
>>
>> "Do that which is right..."
>>
>> Rev. J.D. Walker
>
> As opposed to "Susan Polgar Promo Video" or rgcp cartoon threads, no
> doubt.

Neil,

I have gone through a lot of phases since I started reading this
newsgroup. At one time I thought to try and influence the acrimony in a
more light-hearted direction. Thus the cartooning attempts. At another
time I became deeply involved in one of the debates. This had
unfortunate results. Nevertheless, I have continued to learn more about
what goes on around here, And I have altered my approach to the whole
thing.

One thing I have observed is that you in particular do not seem to
change. Somehow you seem to thrive off of creating strife, personal
attacks, and mudslinging. It may be that that is all this newsgroup is
good for. I hope not.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 16:35:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 27, 5:19 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 27, 11:15 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 10:59 am, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
> > > Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
> > > Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
> > > department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
> > > expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
> > > say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
> > > you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
> > > told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
> > > what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.
>
> > > This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
> > > right in the context of the particular discussion, but at least
> > > suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
> > > ignorance. Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
> > > can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.
>
> > Let's include another Dr,'s opinion, Dr. Peter Groves of Monash
> > University, Australia:
>
> > "Innes' nonsense has been corrected so often that it has become
> > tiresome, and
> > yet he seems incapable of learning. He must, I suppose, be a troll,
> > because no-one as stupid as he pretends to be could survive without
> > institutional care."
>
> > And:
>
> > "I find it hard to believe that even on hlas we have quite such an
> > imbecile
> > among us. If you *really* need it spelt out, moron, ask yourself
> > whether
> > the inhabitants of modern Paris speak Latin. For homework, try to
> > work out
> > what this question has to do with your cretinous "thesis". "
>
> > And Dr. David Webb, Dartmouth University:
>
> > "It has been explained to Mr. Innes many times -- patiently, in
> > painstaking detail, repeatedly, by numerous people, and in words of as
> > few syllables as possible, in order to facilitate his possible
> > comprehension -- that a natural language is much more than its stock
> > of
> > words. But since he persists in believing that when George W. Bush
> > utters the word "vodka," he is speaking Russian, it is scarcely
> > surprising that recondite subtleties such as grammatical structure and
> > syntax are utterly lost upon Mr. Innes. (Apparently, the British
> > language possesses no such structure, as can be confidently inferred
> > from Mr. Innes's prose.) "
>
> > > I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
> > > English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
> > > ridiculous.
>
> > > Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
> > > language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
> > > linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
> > > language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
> > > something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
> > > leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
> > > English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
> > > although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
> > > into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
> > > the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
> > > languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
> > > happened to Latin, which
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > On Jul 27, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > > On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > >> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> > > > >> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> > > > > The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
> > > > > learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
>
> > > > I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that sentence,
> > > > or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
>
> > > > Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
> > > > [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>
> > > > But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
>
> > > > "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
>
> > > > I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
> > > > actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
> > > > occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
> > > > creation:
>
> > > > That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current cause
> > > > of my merriment.
>
> > > > Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, rather
> > > > than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
> > > > unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
> > > > there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not a
> > > > word being spelled variously in the same document.
>
> > > > However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists on
> > > > using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
> > > > exists?
>
> > > > :))
>
> > > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I must admit, this makes me reconsider some things about Phil. It
> isn't that he still contends he is correct, even though people who
> know more than he does on the issue telling him he is wrong; this is
> very standard. But the fact that he volunteers to bring up this issue
> out of the blue to attack Neil is a new level of weirdness. It is as
> though Dan Quayle decided to repeatedly bring up the fact that his
> opponent could not spell potatoes correctly as a reason that he was
> more qualified to be vice president.
>
> How can anyone explain this behavior? It is certainly stupid, and it
> also strikes me as disingenuous (implying that Neil's opinion on the
> subject had no support, when he knew that many people agreed with his
> statement that old English was dead even if he did not). It is beyond
> that, a level of weirdness that I cannot understand; repeatedly
> raising an issue that can only hurt his credibility. Why would he do
> this? Any theories?
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Phil Innes is a nutter. It seems the best explanation. Plus I've pwnd
him, as the young folks write, so many times he's become obsessed with
stalking me.


   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 15:19:11
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 27, 11:15=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:59 am, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
> > Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
> > Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
> > department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
> > expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
> > say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
> > you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
> > told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
> > what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.
>
> > This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
> > right in the context of the particular discussion, but at least
> > suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
> > ignorance. Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
> > can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.
>
> Let's include another Dr,'s opinion, Dr. Peter Groves of Monash
> University, Australia:
>
> "Innes' nonsense has been corrected so often that it has become
> tiresome, and
> yet he seems incapable of learning. =A0 He must, I suppose, be a troll,
> because no-one as stupid as he pretends to be could survive without
> institutional care."
>
> And:
>
> "I find it hard to believe that even on hlas we have quite such an
> imbecile
> among us. =A0If you *really* need it spelt out, moron, ask yourself
> whether
> the inhabitants of modern Paris speak Latin. =A0For homework, try to
> work out
> what this question has to do with your cretinous "thesis". "
>
> And Dr. David Webb, Dartmouth University:
>
> =A0 "It has been explained to Mr. Innes many times -- patiently, in
> painstaking detail, repeatedly, by numerous people, and in words of as
> few syllables as possible, in order to facilitate his possible
> comprehension -- that a natural language is much more than its stock
> of
> words. =A0But since he persists in believing that when George W. Bush
> utters the word "vodka," he is speaking Russian, it is scarcely
> surprising that recondite subtleties such as grammatical structure and
> syntax are utterly lost upon Mr. Innes. =A0(Apparently, the British
> language possesses no such structure, as can be confidently inferred
> from Mr. Innes's prose.) "
>
>
>
> > I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
> > English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
> > ridiculous.
>
> > Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
> > language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
> > linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
> > language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
> > something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
> > leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
> > English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
> > although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
> > into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
> > the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
> > languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
> > happened to Latin, which
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > On Jul 27, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[email protected].=
..
>
> > > > On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capabl=
e of
> > > >> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been=
given
> > > >> a
> > > >> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> > > > The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
> > > > learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
>
> > > I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that sen=
tence,
> > > or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
>
> > > Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
> > > [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>
> > > But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
>
> > > I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
> > > actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexic=
on
> > > occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
> > > creation:
>
> > > That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the curren=
t cause
> > > of my merriment.
>
> > > Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, r=
ather
> > > than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so =
is
> > > unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not th=
at
> > > there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as no=
t a
> > > word being spelled variously in the same document.
>
> > > However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insis=
ts on
> > > using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn=
't
> > > exists?
>
> > > :))
>
> > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I must admit, this makes me reconsider some things about Phil. It
isn't that he still contends he is correct, even though people who
know more than he does on the issue telling him he is wrong; this is
very standard. But the fact that he volunteers to bring up this issue
out of the blue to attack Neil is a new level of weirdness. It is as
though Dan Quayle decided to repeatedly bring up the fact that his
opponent could not spell potatoes correctly as a reason that he was
more qualified to be vice president.

How can anyone explain this behavior? It is certainly stupid, and it
also strikes me as disingenuous (implying that Neil's opinion on the
subject had no support, when he knew that many people agreed with his
statement that old English was dead even if he did not). It is beyond
that, a level of weirdness that I cannot understand; repeatedly
raising an issue that can only hurt his credibility. Why would he do
this? Any theories?

Jerry Spinrad


    
Date: 31 Jul 2008 10:16:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
On Jul 27, 11:15 am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:59 am, "[email protected]"


I must admit, this makes me reconsider some things about Phil. It
isn't that he still contends he is correct, even though people who
know more than he does on the issue

**What????? They know nothing!! - //cannot// contest it, and have //never//
done so. One is a mathematico, and the other a latinist. They are both
abuseniks! Who, exactly like Brennen, present no content, and instead offer
their 'authority' = which is no authority at all!

**Brennen does NOT quite explain the circumstance of these people. They
were, with Brennen, famous for presenting a non-abusnik with constant
insults for 100s of posts --on this very point, that old English was extant
in Englsih counties in the C18th-- deliberately mistating her name froem
Weir to become 'weird'. Whereas I defended that point of view, pointing out
as I have done here that its also present in the USA in the C21st! I quoted
extensively from 2 major linguists, offering Churchill and Neil Armstrong as
reeadily known examples.

**These 'authorities' were complicit agents in abuse - they could not
contest what I wrote at all! Yesterday I posted two selections of A. Sax
here, and most readers could understand 90% of them, I would guess, if they
overcame some odd looking spellings - though probably third of the text was
spelled then as it is now. This is not a dead language! For the great part
the only thing that has happened to it is a standardization of spelling.
That's it! There is nothing more to contest - except the attitude you
yourself hold, and the facts above which Brennen witholds.

telling him he is wrong;

**These pair of doctoral twits also 'refute' the best linguists on the
planet! ROFL. They refute common sense! Why is Jerry Spinrad arguing
something that he personally knows nothing about, and also avoiding the
logical idiocy of using words which deny they theemselves exist? These
aren't like Anglo Saxon words, they are Anglo Saxon words. Period!

this is
very standard.

**Is that you own style ? Some abusenik who himself presents no topical
content whatever and 'tells' you something, and you do not resent the utter
absense of facts? I must suppose it is. And you do what? Historical chess
writing, isn't it? ;(


But the fact that he volunteers to bring up this issue
out of the blue to attack Neil is a new level of weirdness.

**ROFL! It is 'weird' to attack someone who //consistently// writes NO
CONTENT and instead writes abuse? Its weird that utter stupidity is
displayed when content is attempted? Weird? Read below Jerry, where the
'dead language' word you use is explained!

**Maybe Princeton has swung rather further to the right than I suspected!

It is as
though Dan Quayle decided to repeatedly bring up the fact that his
opponent could not spell potatoes correctly as a reason that he was
more qualified to be vice president.

How can anyone explain this behavior? It is certainly stupid, and it

**You are not interested in explanations, Spinrad! You asked previously
about Neil Brennen's other behavior - and I cited you another example of his
massive ignorance while protesting that he knew something about Celtic
iconography. That he stalked me to another newsgroup and used his ignorant
'telling' to abuse me, and abuse the truth.

also strikes me as disingenuous (implying that Neil's opinion on the
subject had no support, when he knew that many people agreed with his
statement that old English was dead even if he did not).

**Look, take a trip down to the Carolinas. They have a dinosaur museum down
there, and they even have saddles on them. This, apparently is a much
accepted point of view - and many people think this and other forms of
creationism should be taught in schools!

It is beyond
that, a level of weirdness that I cannot understand; repeatedly
raising an issue that can only hurt his credibility. Why would he do
this? Any theories?

**Spinrad wants theories about why anyone would resent the utterly inane
comment 'old english is dead' which is a false statement in fact and in
logic - that this SORT of material is used to abuse other people, he has not
the slightest interest therein. I am saying that this is the typical
practice of an abusenik. Jerry Spinrad is not noticing this at all.

**But Jerry Spinrad is the fabulous goon who dares insult the truth and the
logic here - and is himself capable of stating that USCF's secret material
is not cause for Bill Goichberg to resign.

**When people display this abject level of plain truth in their dealings
with others, then evidently they have some other motive for their actions -
since it certainly isn't knowledge. As we see - Spinrad does! He wants me to
be weird! But beware beware Dr. S, the fates attend thee, and the WEIRD [A.
Sax.; fate, Shak.] sisters speak - but Macbeth hears only what he wants of
them, since coarse and bloody ambition clogs his wit. Phil Innes


Jerry Spinrad




    
Date: 27 Jul 2008 16:08:34
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 27, 11:15 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 10:59 am, "[email protected]"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
>>> Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
>>> Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
>>> department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
>>> expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
>>> say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
>>> you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
>>> told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
>>> what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.
>>> This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
>>> right in the context of the particular discussion, but at least
>>> suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
>>> ignorance. Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
>>> can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.
>> Let's include another Dr,'s opinion, Dr. Peter Groves of Monash
>> University, Australia:
>>
>> "Innes' nonsense has been corrected so often that it has become
>> tiresome, and
>> yet he seems incapable of learning. He must, I suppose, be a troll,
>> because no-one as stupid as he pretends to be could survive without
>> institutional care."
>>
>> And:
>>
>> "I find it hard to believe that even on hlas we have quite such an
>> imbecile
>> among us. If you *really* need it spelt out, moron, ask yourself
>> whether
>> the inhabitants of modern Paris speak Latin. For homework, try to
>> work out
>> what this question has to do with your cretinous "thesis". "
>>
>> And Dr. David Webb, Dartmouth University:
>>
>> "It has been explained to Mr. Innes many times -- patiently, in
>> painstaking detail, repeatedly, by numerous people, and in words of as
>> few syllables as possible, in order to facilitate his possible
>> comprehension -- that a natural language is much more than its stock
>> of
>> words. But since he persists in believing that when George W. Bush
>> utters the word "vodka," he is speaking Russian, it is scarcely
>> surprising that recondite subtleties such as grammatical structure and
>> syntax are utterly lost upon Mr. Innes. (Apparently, the British
>> language possesses no such structure, as can be confidently inferred
>> from Mr. Innes's prose.) "
>>
>>
>>
>>> I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
>>> English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
>>> ridiculous.
>>> Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
>>> language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
>>> linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
>>> language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
>>> something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
>>> leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
>>> English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
>>> although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
>>> into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
>>> the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
>>> languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
>>> happened to Latin, which
>>> Jerry Spinrad
>>> On Jul 27, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
>>>>>> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>>>>> The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
>>>>> learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
>>>> I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that sentence,
>>>> or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
>>>> Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
>>>> [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>>>> But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
>>>> "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
>>>> I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
>>>> actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
>>>> occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
>>>> creation:
>>>> That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current cause
>>>> of my merriment.
>>>> Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, rather
>>>> than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
>>>> unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
>>>> there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not a
>>>> word being spelled variously in the same document.
>>>> However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists on
>>>> using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
>>>> exists?
>>>> :))
>>>> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> I must admit, this makes me reconsider some things about Phil. It
> isn't that he still contends he is correct, even though people who
> know more than he does on the issue telling him he is wrong; this is
> very standard. But the fact that he volunteers to bring up this issue
> out of the blue to attack Neil is a new level of weirdness. It is as
> though Dan Quayle decided to repeatedly bring up the fact that his
> opponent could not spell potatoes correctly as a reason that he was
> more qualified to be vice president.
>
> How can anyone explain this behavior? It is certainly stupid, and it
> also strikes me as disingenuous (implying that Neil's opinion on the
> subject had no support, when he knew that many people agreed with his
> statement that old English was dead even if he did not). It is beyond
> that, a level of weirdness that I cannot understand; repeatedly
> raising an issue that can only hurt his credibility. Why would he do
> this? Any theories?
>
> Jerry Spinrad

The whole thread looks to be a childish waste of time that makes none of
it participants look good.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 09:15:07
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 27, 10:59 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
> Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
> Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
> department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
> expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
> say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
> you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
> told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
> what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.
>
> This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
> right in the context of the particular discussion, but at least
> suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
> ignorance. Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
> can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.

Let's include another Dr,'s opinion, Dr. Peter Groves of Monash
University, Australia:

"Innes' nonsense has been corrected so often that it has become
tiresome, and
yet he seems incapable of learning. He must, I suppose, be a troll,
because no-one as stupid as he pretends to be could survive without
institutional care."

And:

"I find it hard to believe that even on hlas we have quite such an
imbecile
among us. If you *really* need it spelt out, moron, ask yourself
whether
the inhabitants of modern Paris speak Latin. For homework, try to
work out
what this question has to do with your cretinous "thesis". "

And Dr. David Webb, Dartmouth University:

"It has been explained to Mr. Innes many times -- patiently, in
painstaking detail, repeatedly, by numerous people, and in words of as
few syllables as possible, in order to facilitate his possible
comprehension -- that a natural language is much more than its stock
of
words. But since he persists in believing that when George W. Bush
utters the word "vodka," he is speaking Russian, it is scarcely
surprising that recondite subtleties such as grammatical structure and
syntax are utterly lost upon Mr. Innes. (Apparently, the British
language possesses no such structure, as can be confidently inferred
from Mr. Innes's prose.) "

> I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
> English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
> ridiculous.
>
> Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
> language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
> linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
> language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
> something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
> leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
> English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
> although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
> into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
> the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
> languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
> happened to Latin, which
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Jul 27, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> > >> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given
> > >> a
> > >> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> > > The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
> > > learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
>
> > I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that sentence,
> > or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
>
> > Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
> > [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>
> > But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
>
> > "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
>
> > I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
> > actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
> > occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
> > creation:
>
> > That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current cause
> > of my merriment.
>
> > Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, rather
> > than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
> > unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
> > there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not a
> > word being spelled variously in the same document.
>
> > However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists on
> > using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
> > exists?
>
> > :))
>
> > Phil Innes



    
Date: 29 Jul 2008 09:17:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
Brennen, don't quote us woman-bashing fascists! You actually offer us two of
them who, typically, argue and refute nothing whatever. What is said about
these two characters on any subject whatever, is that this absence of topic
is typical of THEM!

No proof of mine is necessary to demonstrate this issue, since you have done
so yourself! More abuse and no content.

Jerry Spinrad thinks this is a conversation! pfft! But it is simply a
demonstration that engaging contentless abuse shows who can address any
topic - and abusers who engage a topic without attempting anything of their
own. That is nihilism, not conversation.

Phil Innes

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jul 27, 10:59 am, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
>> Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
>> Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
>> department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
>> expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
>> say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
>> you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
>> told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
>> what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.
>>
>> This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
>> right in the context of the particular discussion, but at least
>> suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
>> ignorance. Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
>> can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.
>
> Let's include another Dr,'s opinion, Dr. Peter Groves of Monash
> University, Australia:
>
> "Innes' nonsense has been corrected so often that it has become
> tiresome, and
> yet he seems incapable of learning. He must, I suppose, be a troll,
> because no-one as stupid as he pretends to be could survive without
> institutional care."
>
> And:
>
> "I find it hard to believe that even on hlas we have quite such an
> imbecile
> among us. If you *really* need it spelt out, moron, ask yourself
> whether
> the inhabitants of modern Paris speak Latin. For homework, try to
> work out
> what this question has to do with your cretinous "thesis". "
>
> And Dr. David Webb, Dartmouth University:
>
> "It has been explained to Mr. Innes many times -- patiently, in
> painstaking detail, repeatedly, by numerous people, and in words of as
> few syllables as possible, in order to facilitate his possible
> comprehension -- that a natural language is much more than its stock
> of
> words. But since he persists in believing that when George W. Bush
> utters the word "vodka," he is speaking Russian, it is scarcely
> surprising that recondite subtleties such as grammatical structure and
> syntax are utterly lost upon Mr. Innes. (Apparently, the British
> language possesses no such structure, as can be confidently inferred
> from Mr. Innes's prose.) "
>
>> I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
>> English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
>> ridiculous.
>>
>> Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
>> language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
>> linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
>> language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
>> something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
>> leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
>> English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
>> although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
>> into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
>> the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
>> languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
>> happened to Latin, which
>>
>> Jerry Spinrad
>>
>> On Jul 27, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > > On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > >> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable
>> > >> of
>> > >> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been
>> > >> given
>> > >> a
>> > >> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>>
>> > > The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
>> > > learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
>>
>> > I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that
>> > sentence,
>> > or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
>>
>> > Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
>> > [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>>
>> > But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
>>
>> > "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
>>
>> > I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
>> > actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
>> > occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
>> > creation:
>>
>> > That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current
>> > cause
>> > of my merriment.
>>
>> > Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/,
>> > rather
>> > than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
>> > unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
>> > there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not
>> > a
>> > word being spelled variously in the same document.
>>
>> > However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists
>> > on
>> > using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
>> > exists?
>>
>> > :))
>>
>> > Phil Innes
>




   
Date: 27 Jul 2008 08:59:58
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.

This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
right in the context of the particular discussion, but at least
suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
ignorance. Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.

I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
ridiculous.


Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
happened to Latin, which

Jerry Spinrad


On Jul 27, 10:26=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> >> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been giv=
en
> >> a
> >> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> > The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
> > learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
>
> I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that sentenc=
e,
> or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
>
> Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
> [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>
> But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
>
> =A0 =A0 "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
>
> I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
> actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
> occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
> creation:
>
> That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current ca=
use
> of my merriment.
>
> Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, rathe=
r
> than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
> unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
> there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not a
> word being spelled variously in the same document.
>
> However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists o=
n
> using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
> exists?
>
> :))
>
> Phil Innes



    
Date: 29 Jul 2008 09:11:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
This "Old English is/not Dead" as proof of correctness in the Phil vs
Neil debate seems completely irrelevant to anything to do with chess.
Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I asked someone from an English
department who I felt would be a good judge (not, I will admit, an
expert on Old English in particular) "Would you feel it is accurate to
say that Old English is a dead language?" The reply was "Yes, why do
you ask?" I explained very roughly what I understood of it, and was
told that they would have to look at the exact context to understand
what the meaning of dead was in the context of the discussion.

**Jerry Spinrad's 'English department' bloke doesn't seem to comment on the
fact that the words used are old English. Which is very peculiar! But
perhaps this 'English' department bloke didn't know they were. That would
have been a better question: What is the root language of 'Old English is
dead'?

This doesn't really settle the question of whether Phil or Neil was
right in the context of the particular discussion,

**That's right. Your bloke didn't know, did he Jerry.

but at least
suggests that Phil should stop using this as a proof of Neil's great
ignorance.

**It does 'suggest' it? I wonder if this bloke of Jerry's would accord with
the very top linguists in the world who say that the most used 100 words in
English are ALL Anglo Saxon?

THE BATTLE OF LEXICON

**Jerry's friend reminds me of the inverse of the Monthy Python sketch, with
'this Parrot is Dead'. I wonder if he would care to campel [OE] and actually
not render an opinion, but render us his lexicon? I am not expressing an
opinion, I am stating that those 4 words are old English, and opinion
neither makes them so or otherwise. Similarly that the most used words in
the English language are still A. Sax.

Surely some better example of Neil's monstrous ignorance
can be found, if he is as dense as Phil feels he is.

JERRY WANTS MORE!

**Is that an invitation. OKAY!! So Neil Brennen stalked me to a Celtic
newsgroup and teamed up with a linguist there to refute my suggestion that
there was a pan-Celtic iconography. Which is only to say that similar
symbols were used across half a dozen Celtic regions in the UK and
Brittanny. She decided there was not - and it was absurd to suggest it. But
when I asked this linguist if she had ever heard of cup-and-ring marks
[about 50,000 in UK] she said no. She had also never heard of serpent icons,
single or twinned or twining. She had never heard of the equal armed
pre-Christian Celtic cross - and despite being a 'linguist' was unaware that
Book of Kells, eg, employed all these icons in that famous book. She had
never heard of Aidan Meehan who has written [I think] 12 books now on the
subject, and who regularly lectures on their factualness, construction
method, and inner design.

**Yet Brennen incited this person who admitted no knowledge whatever to DENY
what she admitted she didn't know, and then they both set about rubbishing
me.

**Now - this is but ONE example of an idiocy so complete and malicious - its
not discussion at all. Dr. Spinrad suggest it is, but it is plain ignornace
to write on subjects of which you know nothing - thenm malign others for
their understanding of KNOWN facts.


I also would note this from Wikipedia; again, not a proof that Old
English is dead but pretty strong evidence that the statement is not
ridiculous.


Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a
language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a
linguistic phenomenon similar to pseudoextinction. This happens when a
language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into
something that is then recognized as a separate, different language,
leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old
English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers,
although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed
into Modern English. The process of language change may also involve
the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter
languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has
happened to Latin, which

**Jerry, the 100 MOST USED words in English today are Old English. Not one
of them is Latin, which is to say that Latin really is a dead language, even
though Latin is adopted into English in many forms. Old English never died
at all. Moreover, more people now speak English than any other language.
Every word Armstrong spoke in his announcement on landing on the Moon were
Old English, and the 50 words Churchill spoke [save the last, 'surrrender']
on his famous 'beaches' speech are also Old English. That is to say, no
Latin, French German Anglo Norman, nor aught else.

**There is no argument about spelling - which may or may not have changed
over time, and was in fact not unified on the Island until the C10th by
Alfred. Neither are lexiconographic factors possible since we do not have
anyt record of spoken OE with which to compare that with any current
speech - that is, if it ever changed at all.

**By abstraction and his consultation, Jerry Spinrad seems to have cast
doubt on the fact that proclaiming Old English is dead USING 4 words of OE
to say so, is not a logical absurdity.

Phil Innes




Jerry Spinrad


On Jul 27, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> >> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been
> >> given
> >> a
> >> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> > The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
> > learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?
>
> I <dread> asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that
> sentence,
> or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.
>
> Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
> [Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].
>
> But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.
>
> "Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"
>
> I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
> actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
> occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
> creation:
>
> That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current
> cause
> of my merriment.
>
> Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, rather
> than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
> unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
> there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not a
> word being spelled variously in the same document.
>
> However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists on
> using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
> exists?
>
> :))
>
> Phil Innes




   
Date: 26 Jul 2008 12:16:09
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Innes' rating, if any
On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Jul 23, 4:45 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:17:17 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Not only that, but Greg Kennedy evidently has maintained that rating
> >> >> through a number of recent events.
>
> >> >What a shame then that I held a more recent 2300 rating.
>
> >> On GetClub? E-mail chess? Let's get down to the really prestigious
> >> things: where do you stand on your local club Ladder?
>
> > That would imply he actually played chess.
>
> Show up somewhere and play! Or continue with your usual WHINE - an
> obsession, you know how it goes, anyone better than you at any subject
> [which includes very many subjects indeed] is simply abused, with
> encouragement to others to abuse too - so that there is nary any chess left
> in chess.misc.
>
> Instead obsessional types have taken over to negatively speculate about
> others. This crew on mainly one-issue posters declare others insane and so
> on.
>
> If Greg Kennedy can actually write about chess, then presumably he'll get
> around to doing so - rather than playing Sanny's engine which for someone of
> his status can't be much of a challenge.
>
> I play about 500 games a year of cc, and that more than implies I play
> chess. Brennen, like Sloan, was invited to join in by Rob Mitchell, but they
> never got the e-mails!
>
> One feature of being stalked by Brennen is that the truth is always the
> opposite of what he says - and you know you did something good when he
> whines about it - and given that his twin resentments are being successfully
> published to lots of people continuously, and ratings, then I ask myself
> about another obsessive, Sam Sloan whose bete noir is Susan Polgar, and if
> the same is true for Sloan?
>
> Can he actually tell the truth about his compulsion - can he not spin it?
> Does he actually think that what he writes is true?
>
> The [lol] nightmare-crew attack sense itself with such wanton spin as would
> shame a ny lawyer!
>
>
>
> >> >These two wits snipped that, the point of the post, and how fascinating
> >> >that material similar to that of the FSS should be eliminated from both
> >> >their messages, when another culprit is mentioned.
> >> >At least we know of Rynd/Dowd and Murray that they do not care about
> >> >such
> >> >things,...Not by their words, but by their inactions, what such people
> >> >snip away is
> >> >their measure.
>
> >> Usenet convention is to retain the portion of the post to which one is
> >> responding or about which one is commenting, and snip the rest (a
> >> convention you'd be wise to adopt, Phil -- it would make your posts
> >> less chaotic).
>
> > P Innes does know how to 'snip' - and he snips for the very same
> > reason he accuses you and SBD of employing.
>
> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given a
> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.

The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?

> That is the level of denial going on here. And these very tiny minds
> incrementally change other's statements and contexts so that Brennen can
> both mock a low 2000 rating, and also declare if I even have a rating.

No one has mocked your "low 2000" rating. We've mocked your claim to
be "nearly an IM" and have a rating of 2450.

> You really can't get dumber than that. But you can get meaner, which of
> course it the sole intent of the whining ninnies obsessional group.
>
> Phil Innes

If anyone is capable of getting meaner, and nuttier, it's you,
Philsy.

>
> >> The only meaning one can impute to the snipped portion is that it's
> >> not something about which the poster cared to comment at the present
> >> time.



    
Date: 30 Jul 2008 10:09:40
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 30, 12:07=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:57:06 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> If I acquire four dollars that once belonged to Enron, does that mean
> >> they're not bankrupt?
> >Wrong construct: you should ask about the subject matter [dollars] if,
> >having belonged to Enron, are they still dollars? [same subject].
> >You confound the subject with the object of your sentence.
>
> Good suggestion. =A0Rewording: =A0"If I acquire four dollars that once
> belonged to Enron, can I infer that Enron is not bankrupt?" =A0How's
> that?

What about posing it like this"

If I found a ancient Roman coin, does that mean there is no Roman
currency?"


     
Date: 30 Jul 2008 10:30:03
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:09:40 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:


>What about posing it like this"

>If I found a ancient Roman coin, does that mean there is no Roman
>currency?"

Better: "If I found an ancient Roman coin, can I spend it at the 7-11
?"


    
Date: 27 Jul 2008 11:26:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Old English is Dead

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 24, 8:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> Vague abstract criticism - from a chronic abusenik, someone capable of
>> stating, Old English is dead - a statement so daft it has not been given
>> a
>> name, since it requires 4 words of Old English to state it.
>
> The sentence "Old English is dead." isn't Old English. Haven't you
> learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?

I <dread > asking what Neil Brennen think he is expressing in that sentence,
or even if he thinks it has any possible logical answer.

Perhaps someone should have bought Neil a Lego set?
[Lego, Lexicon; Greek; to speak, speech].

But to how to answer his question is even more bizarre.

"Haven't you learned yet that a language isn't its lexicon?"

I wonder quite what answering that double-negative 'yes or no' would
actually mean to anyone at all? Especially since the dread word Lexicon
occurs in it, and this no doubt is linked in Neil's mind to his own
creation:

That claiming "Old English is dead" is NOT Old English, is the current cause
of my merriment.

Brennen now confounds 4 words of old English with English /speech/, rather
than textual spellings - though whether he understand he is doing so is
unclear. So obviously it is not about spellings in A. Sax. And not that
there was even any conformity of Anglo Saxon spelling, as often as not a
word being spelled variously in the same document.

However, I am sure he will be quick to reply and tell us why he insists on
using 4 words of a language to deny that the language he speaks doesn't
exists?

:))

Phil Innes






   
Date: 24 Jul 2008 04:58:22
From: The Historian
Subject: Innes' rating, if any
On Jul 23, 4:45 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:17:17 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Not only that, but Greg Kennedy evidently has maintained that rating
> >> through a number of recent events.
>
> >What a shame then that I held a more recent 2300 rating.
>
> On GetClub? E-mail chess? Let's get down to the really prestigious
> things: where do you stand on your local club Ladder?

That would imply he actually played chess.

> >These two wits snipped that, the point of the post, and how fascinating
> >that material similar to that of the FSS should be eliminated from both
> >their messages, when another culprit is mentioned.
> >At least we know of Rynd/Dowd and Murray that they do not care about such
> >things,...Not by their words, but by their inactions, what such people snip away is
> >their measure.
>
> Usenet convention is to retain the portion of the post to which one is
> responding or about which one is commenting, and snip the rest (a
> convention you'd be wise to adopt, Phil -- it would make your posts
> less chaotic).

P Innes does know how to 'snip' - and he snips for the very same
reason he accuses you and SBD of employing.

>
> The only meaning one can impute to the snipped portion is that it's
> not something about which the poster cared to comment at the present
> time.



    
Date: 02 Aug 2008 07:43:43
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
Javert wrote:
.
>
> Better a suppositionary post, than a suppository post!

Nice one! 'yesgreen' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jowett_Javelin..


    
Date: 31 Jul 2008 16:25:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 31, 10:19=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:

> There's a thread on this subject active in the Shakespeare newsgroup,
> and folks who know what they are talking about are posting to it. P
> Innes chose to post his discussion of language here for some reason.
> Probably the same reason he chose to brag about his 2450 rating and
> nearly an IM strength somewhere other than the chess groups.


Wait a second-- nowhere did our Mr. Innes
brag about merely having the "strength" of a
nearly-an-IM, oh no! He bragged about in
fact *being* a nearly-an-IM, and about him
actually having a 2450 rating.

There is a titanic difference. For instance,
when I am armed with Rybka and my
notebook computer, I claim to have the
strength of ten FMs-- to be able to lift
tactics like Arnold Swarzennegger; able to
split wood like Paul Bunyan. But I don't
ever claim to *be* A.S. (he's much
better looking) or to *be* P.B. (he's quite a
bit taller, and always wears plaid).

Anyway, it sure is amusing how the good
folks who want to beat up on PI need to
recruit "authorities" to help 'em out. To me,
it's as plain as day that no matter what a
few nutters contend, old English is not
really dead at all; it just mutated into our
current mess of a language (which some
other "authorities" decided should keep
the same name, adding an adjective).

Like the folks who make TV shows and
Hollywood movies, you people just don't
understand the true meaning of the term
"dead".

The real problem with nearly-an-IMnes is
twofold:

1) He spews abuse non-stop while at the
same time name-calling certain others
"abuseniks";

2) His purported moral standards are
always applied at the whims of his
fearless leaders, which is to say, very,
very inconsistently.

The solution to number one would be for
him to start posting what he calls content,
and stop all this fussing with his critics.
(In fact, he could deal them a hearty blow
by recanting his lies regarding title and
rating and electro-optic cyclops heat-
seeking killer-ray lasers and Andean
scholar "cum loud, eh?")

Number two would require a complete
rewrite of his current operating system; a
switch from haphazard patched-together
code to a structurally sound, logic-based
system. (Granted, there was that one
fluke failure with the HAL9000 computer,
but that was not Hal's fault-- they lied to
him!)


-- help bot







    
Date: 31 Jul 2008 13:21:29
From: Javert
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 31, 3:50=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
<snip >
>
> O! what a surprise! A speculation instead of actual knowledge as such!
> Another suppositionary post as excuse for abuse! How novel!
>
<snip >
>
> Cordially! Phil Innes

Better a suppositionary post, than a suppository post!


    
Date: 31 Jul 2008 07:19:07
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old English is Dead
On Jul 30, 8:24 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Javert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
> On Jul 29, 3:54 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:39:57 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >What a bunch of abstract codswallop! Using 4 words of
> > >a 'dead' language to declare the language dead is a LOGICAL aburdity.
>
> > If I acquire four dollars that once belonged to Enron, does that mean
> > they're not bankrupt?
>
> > If Mayo does a cornea transplant from a corpse to Phil Innes (so he
> > will no longer be confused with the blind monkey), does that mean the
> > cadaver lives?
>
> > Learn to reason by analogy, man. It will serve you well.
>
> We have birds walking the earth.
> We have lizards walking the earth.
> Dinosaurs are not dead!
> Q.E.D.
>
> ----
> ----
> Not! Some dinosaurs returned to the sea - Whales were once rather large
> land-bunnies! Craig Childs is good on this subject ;