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:da1abbd4-77dc-4d56-8ad1-90c341c41e0f@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com..= . > > 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:da1abbd4-77dc-4d56-8ad1-90c341c41e0f@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > 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:da1abbd4-77dc-4d56-8ad1-90c341c41e0f@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> 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:da1abbd4-77dc-4d56-8ad1-90c341c41e0f@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... 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:607e25ec-3292-4066-927f-1649a1174ec3@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > 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:607e25ec-3292-4066-927f-1649a1174ec3@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> 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:607e25ec-3292-4066-927f-1649a1174ec3@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > >>> 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:607e25ec-3292-4066-927f-1649a1174ec3@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >>> >> >>>> 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:607e25ec-3292-4066-927f-1649a1174ec3@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>> 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:607e25ec-3292-4066-927f-1649a1174ec3@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com= ... > > >>>> =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:607e25ec-3292-4066-927f-1649a1174ec3@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> 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 Guant�namo? > 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:b76092c8-6bfe-4f4e-8370-e722a9484003@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > 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:bbd9f6ad-2196-4c76-b01e-943ef8075a40@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > 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:bbd9f6ad-2196-4c76-b01e-943ef8075a40@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > 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:c9be1fb6-c912-4876-ab53-232000e108b9@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com... 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:b76092c8-6bfe-4f4e-8370-e722a9484003@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > 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:e7ed65ec-a5d8-42a4-b73a-52fbf0e8fa7f@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > 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:60f4fa77-9257-45aa-bc2d-bb85821f6ff3@y71g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... 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:4b8b6718-178a-4bd6-984b-3557692ee869@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > 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:4b8b6718-178a-4bd6-984b-3557692ee869@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... 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:ad72e252-e44c-4c78-9cf7-b4e5bc4d27d7@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > [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:724ef967-5e27-47e6-82dd-5b4615dd60fe@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > 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:df6d73f3-d9f6-46de-b799-a8caf43c141d@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > > > Chess One wrote: >> <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:724ef967-5e27-47e6-82dd-5b4615dd60fe@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> 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:25b43f91-a34f-4db2-8bf9-b409e626efac@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > 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:724ef967-5e27-47e6-82dd-5b4615dd60fe@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... 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 Degr�, 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 Degr�, 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 Degr�, 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:f2dc5d93-2a8a-42df-bbb9-d0fc32bc1443@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > 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:a48aac13-34bd-4059-bea7-e7daffb03add@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > 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:f2dc5d93-2a8a-42df-bbb9-d0fc32bc1443@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > 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:cdb4c509-45b3-4db7-99a3-c420319ab742@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > 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:f2dc5d93-2a8a-42df-bbb9-d0fc32bc1443@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > 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:b66eb298-a7a4-43b2-a017-d596d3d21ff1@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... 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:c1754da1-0918-4cb6-b3f7-3f86a07e9517@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... 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:b0b6f0ce-7e1b-454b-85fd-a30097ed0a4c@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > 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:cdb4c509-45b3-4db7-99a3-c420319ab742@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... 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:0779975a-b6d4-4d89-ab32-6e78bc2afa71@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > 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 ;) > > In fact, all extant aquatic mammals once lived on land. > > ---- > ---- > QED was originally a comment on a logical construct which is not dependent > on content alone. It, of itself, is sufficient to determine things. Phrases > which deny or contradict their own content [independent of whatever the > content may be] are merely logical constructis, but self-evidently false > ones. > > That is the level of the joke here. And [lol] one does not need 'experts' in > linguistics or any content field to confound the issue with their > suppositions, equivocations or reservations. The illogical phrase is > self-evidently false to anyone who understands that the words used are the > very words denied, to be able to determine that the phrase is false, Q.E.D. > All experts need to affirm is that the words contained in "Old English is > dead" are indeed Anglo Saxon words. > > So actually, to make the statement "Old English is dead" is to to > demonstrate no content knowledge of Old English <grin> > > ---- > ---- > For the serious student, there was very little concinnity before the year > 1000 from the 3 major A. Sax groups. Old English was never a language at > all, since these 3 groups were very little intelligible one to another. > Alfred is the only British monarch ever called "Great" precisely for his > educative initiatives on the Island, especially in these matters of unifying > the language[s] so that people could understand each other and actually > attain a literacy heretofore impossible, except in a regional dialect or, as > was usual among scholars in Latin. > > Essentially, Mercian was to the North and West, East Saxon was spoken in the > Danelaw and was a dominant in the capital and contained many Viking/Icel. > terms, and West Saxon the south of England generally - and which is the > current major 'well' of English language. > > Indeed, the words "old" and "English" are from different groups, and might > not combine in any single group. Old seems to be Mercian, though > English/Englische and variant spellings seem to be West Saxon. The word that > "Mercians" used for their own dialect or Saxon language is actually unknown, > and "Mercian" is therefore an invented name linguists coined for it. The > word "dead" meant differing things in each region - see below > > But to be on topic in a chess newsgroup, an old name for checkmate is: > DEAD-MATE. A very old ecclesiastical term is DEAD-BOOT [A. Sax] with a > meaning; "offices or services done for the dead", as well as "pennance." > > DEAD > 1) fainted [west] > 2) very, exceeding [north] > 3) death [Suffolk] also, to kill > 4) to deaden [north] > > the word combines with many others, Spenser coined DEAD-DOING, with a > meaning "destructive". > > DEDELY: Mortal [A. Sax] > > But goddes that ever-mare are liffaunde and > nevermare dyes, deynes noyte for to hafe the > felachipe of dedely menne. > > //MS Lincoln A. i. 17 f. 8 > > MS Lincs also uses the formation DEDLYNES [A. Sax] to mean mortality, here > are the phrases containing the cit. > > takyng of owre dedlynes, he was > made lesse then an engelle whilles he was in this' > vale of teres > > // MS Lincs, A i 17 f 180 > > Which ani ful can look up. What is interesting about these citations is that > they are very readable with only a little imagination supplied, and the > curious spellings likely phonetic renditions of how they were spoken. > > Some similar Anglo Saxon words or alternative spellings [suggesting how the > woprd was spoken in a locality] are DEED, dead, and DEEF, deaf. > > These I suggest to your demur [A. Sax.] a judge, a judgement. A word picked > up by that interesting atavist Shakespeare, who coined DEMERITS, merits, > which looks French but which ain't! > > Phil Innes 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.         Date: 30 Jul 2008 07:05:23 From: SBD Subject: Re: Old English is Dead On Jul 30, 8:24 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > But to be on topic in a chess newsgroup, an old name for checkmate is: > DEAD-MATE. Wait, checkmate comes from shahmat. King and dead, so you are saying an old name for checkmate is "dead dead"? If it was anyone but you, I would simply question that assertion, but seeing as it is the "language king," I'll take my chances now at saying, for the umpteenth time, you are full of shit. It's pretty clear you make this crap up and just hope you are correct.           Date: 31 Jul 2008 15:50:41 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Old English is Dead "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:fc99a0e1-c353-4322-9097-8b337d388b45@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 30, 8:24 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> But to be on topic in a chess newsgroup, an old name for checkmate is: >> DEAD-MATE. > > Wait, checkmate comes from shahmat. King and dead, where do you think the English words come from Steven? :)))) That is to say, from which language group are they drawn? Or, perhaps I do not understand you, and you contest "Dead-Mate" being an old term for check mate? I cannot decide your intent by your words alone. > so you are saying > an old name for checkmate is "dead dead"? If it was anyone but you, I > would simply question that assertion, but seeing as it is the Halliwell who says so... > "language king," I'll take my chances now at saying, for the umpteenth > time, you are full of shit. O! what a surprise! A speculation instead of actual knowledge as such! Another suppositionary post as excuse for abuse! How novel! > It's pretty clear you make this crap up > and just hope you are correct. You could look it up yourself and then argue by way of knowledge - but that is a personal choice. What words in English represented the Persian? Where in English did those words come from? Since you are highly unlikely to even answer, nevermind research anything before issuing your 'opinions', this then would interest only people interested in words and in chess studies. Surely the word Mat is Persian, but in which English language is it adopted as "mate"? And the likely answer is Anglo Norman, and following the 2nd Crusade, whereas the word 'dead' is older, A. Sax. and that is what I wrote as a previous name for check mate. What exactly are you contesting to talk of 'crap'? Let everyone know immediately. Let me know after you studied something - as you say above, I can wait, especially since your clock is now ticking. Cordially! Phil Innes             Date: 31 Jul 2008 12:57:35 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Old English is Dead On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:50:41 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >"SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> "language king," I'll take my chances now at saying, for the umpteenth >> time, you are full of shit. >O! what a surprise! A speculation instead of actual knowledge as such! A thesis based on induction is not speculation.         Date: 29 Jul 2008 20:46:11 From: help bot Subject: Re: Old English is Dead On Jul 29, 4:34=A0pm, Javert <[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. I think the canaries in their mental "mines" have long since suffocated. It is indeed a burdity-- I mean an absurdity, to seek out and quote academic "experts" here, for not only do such people have an abysmal record, but their opinions are often dumb. > > If I acquire four dollars that once belonged to Enron, does that mean > > they're not bankrupt? You'll go to jail for petty theft, regardless. > > 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? Not without electrochemical necromancy. > > Learn to reason by analogy, man. =A0It will serve you well. It really is not necessary here, for just as in the movie "Ice Station Zebra", there is a self-evident logical aburdity-- err! I mean /absurdity/, which trumps all else (like those supposedly "expert" opinions). > We have birds walking the earth. Like the ostrich... . (If you thought of penguins, subtract one point since they walk not on earth, but on ice.) > We have lizards walking the earth. Crawling, mainly. But a few might be considered to walk. > Dinosaurs are not dead! Wrong. Most dinos are dead, and the few that remain are safely contained on an island off the west coast of South America. There is *zero risk* of serious problems arising, since we engineered them all to be of the same sex. In fact, we are planning to make this into a very profitable amusement park some day. This whole witch-hunt regarding the dead language comment reminds me of a famous story about a man who was supposedly beaten and cast out by a group of "learned academicians" for suggesting that they go outside and count the teeth in a real horse's head rather than continue writhing over what somebody did or did not write centuries earlier. A dead language, of course, is one where the only people who once spoke it all lived at the base of an active volcano-- or something like that. Any language that merely evolves is not truly dead; it may be called by a new name, but that is obviously not death, since words alone cannot kill. -- help bot         Date: 29 Jul 2008 13:34:52 From: Javert Subject: Re: Old English is Dead On Jul 29, 3:54=A0pm, 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. =A0It will serve you well. We have birds walking the earth. We have lizards walking the earth. Dinosaurs are not dead! Q.E.D.           Date: 30 Jul 2008 09:24:34 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Old English is Dead "Javert" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:0779975a-b6d4-4d89-ab32-6e78bc2afa71@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... 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 ;) In fact, all extant aquatic mammals once lived on land. ---- ---- QED was originally a comment on a logical construct which is not dependent on content alone. It, of itself, is sufficient to determine things. Phrases which deny or contradict their own content [independent of whatever the content may be] are merely logical constructis, but self-evidently false ones. That is the level of the joke here. And [lol] one does not need 'experts' in linguistics or any content field to confound the issue with their suppositions, equivocations or reservations. The illogical phrase is self-evidently false to anyone who understands that the words used are the very words denied, to be able to determine that the phrase is false, Q.E.D. All experts need to affirm is that the words contained in "Old English is dead" are indeed Anglo Saxon words. So actually, to make the statement "Old English is dead" is to to demonstrate no content knowledge of Old English <grin > ---- ---- For the serious student, there was very little concinnity before the year 1000 from the 3 major A. Sax groups. Old English was never a language at all, since these 3 groups were very little intelligible one to another. Alfred is the only British monarch ever called "Great" precisely for his educative initiatives on the Island, especially in these matters of unifying the language[s] so that people could understand each other and actually attain a literacy heretofore impossible, except in a regional dialect or, as was usual among scholars in Latin. Essentially, Mercian was to the North and West, East Saxon was spoken in the Danelaw and was a dominant in the capital and contained many Viking/Icel. terms, and West Saxon the south of England generally - and which is the current major 'well' of English language. Indeed, the words "old" and "English" are from different groups, and might not combine in any single group. Old seems to be Mercian, though English/Englische and variant spellings seem to be West Saxon. The word that "Mercians" used for their own dialect or Saxon language is actually unknown, and "Mercian" is therefore an invented name linguists coined for it. The word "dead" meant differing things in each region - see below But to be on topic in a chess newsgroup, an old name for checkmate is: DEAD-MATE. A very old ecclesiastical term is DEAD-BOOT [A. Sax] with a meaning; "offices or services done for the dead", as well as "pennance." DEAD 1) fainted [west] 2) very, exceeding [north] 3) death [Suffolk] also, to kill 4) to deaden [north] the word combines with many others, Spenser coined DEAD-DOING, with a meaning "destructive". DEDELY: Mortal [A. Sax] But goddes that ever-mare are liffaunde and nevermare dyes, deynes noyte for to hafe the felachipe of dedely menne. //MS Lincoln A. i. 17 f. 8 MS Lincs also uses the formation DEDLYNES [A. Sax] to mean mortality, here are the phrases containing the cit. takyng of owre dedlynes, he was made lesse then an engelle whilles he was in this' vale of teres // MS Lincs, A i 17 f 180 Which ani ful can look up. What is interesting about these citations is that they are very readable with only a little imagination supplied, and the curious spellings likely phonetic renditions of how they were spoken. Some similar Anglo Saxon words or alternative spellings [suggesting how the woprd was spoken in a locality] are DEED, dead, and DEEF, deaf. These I suggest to your demur [A. Sax.] a judge, a judgement. A word picked up by that interesting atavist Shakespeare, who coined DEMERITS, merits, which looks French but which ain't! Phil Innes         Date: 24 Jul 2008 09:31:21 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Innes' rating, if any "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. 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. 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 >> >> 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: 20 Jul 2008 14:47:49 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:42:24 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >Therefore - no principal is involved here - just pure personality politics. I agree. The superintendent was involved, or perhaps the janitor or the butler. None have any principles.         Date: 20 Jul 2008 22:04:53 From: Brian Lafferty Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF Mike Murray wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:42:24 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> Therefore - no principal is involved here - just pure personality politics. > > I agree. The superintendent was involved, or perhaps the janitor or > the butler. None have any principles. The question begs; is Phil so bad at grammar and spelling or is he really just putting everyone on.   Date: 20 Jul 2008 12:39:10 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 19, 6:19 pm, Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jul 19, 10:34 am, <[email protected]> > > (NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.44.134.237) wrote: > > 7 ... > 7 It was to the shame of the United States Chess Federation that > 7 Bobby Fischer was kicked out and not allowed back in by the > 7 negative votes of Goichberg and Channing. > 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. 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     Date: 20 Jul 2008 16:54:30 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:f40da8b8-2e4f-4436-9213-e29156eccd6a@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 19, 6:19 pm, Louis Blair <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Jul 19, 10:34 am, <[email protected]> >> >> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.44.134.237) wrote: >> >> 7 ... >> 7 It was to the shame of the United States Chess Federation that >> 7 Bobby Fischer was kicked out and not allowed back in by the >> 7 negative votes of Goichberg and Channing. >> 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. > > 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. Was when? Memberships elapse, and Sloan is wrong. No letter to USCF was necessary - yet Fischer's opinion of USCF was crystal clear. > 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. Well... is that to switch the subject from being 'claimed' by USCF as a member, to whether there is some standard at USCF of who it would accept? Just 2 posts ago Sloan wrote that USCF will accept murders. > Goichberg's claim that Fischer should "apply" for USCF membership was > just an excuse and excuse for what? > as he knew that Fischer would never apply and indeed no > other grandmaster has ever been required to apply for USCF membership. So Sloan says that GMs are automatically members, even if they say no! But I think this cannot be legally, or even in normal expectation, true in any way. Fischer wanted out, was out. If he wanted in he could say so. Unless of course Sam Sloan thinks USCF subscribe people against their will who detest USCF, for publicity purposes, and this is [illegal] USCF policy? Sloan cut all of the last post, so this is not addressed to him - but to people's reason. I would even say to their decency, though gawd knows who here could appreciate that. --- Can USCF actually substantiate Trice's rating - if not, leave the guy alone - if they can, they should initiate some standards down there, about who they will rate, other than murders, ex-board members of uncertain 'dignity', and plain liars. My understanding is that they make no differentiation among this group.And you can, for example, murder, lie and hike your rating 1,000 points without notice. I am personally most in sympathy with the murders since they didn't cheat chess. Phil Innes > Sam Sloan       Date: 20 Jul 2008 14:45:31 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:54:30 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >> No letter has ever been found from Fischer resigning his USCF >> Membership. Thus, Fischer was still a USCF member. >Was when? Memberships elapse Hmmm. Most would say memberships lapse after the purchased time elapses. >, and Sloan is wrong. No letter to USCF was >necessary - yet Fischer's opinion of USCF was crystal clear. I thought Fischer earlier had been granted a Life Membership, which, AFAIK, don't lapse.   Date: 19 Jul 2008 16:19:55 From: Louis Blair Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 19, 10:34=A0am, <[email protected] > (NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.44.134.237) wrote: 7 ... 7 It was to the shame of the United States Chess Federation that 7 Bobby Fischer was kicked out and not allowed back in by the 7 negative votes of Goichberg and Channing. 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.   Date: 19 Jul 2008 10:34:34 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 19, 11:56 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > <Ed Trice>: As I have said, once I "took over" the ID, "again", I > deliberately tanked the rating to get it U1400 for the purpose of > playing in the World Open> > > This is what the USCF website has to say about such practices (quoted > fromhttp://main.uschess.org/content/vie...), specifically with > respect to the lure of high prizes at the World Open. > > <<< This leads to occasional "sand-bagging," losing points on purpose > to lower your rating artificially in order to play in a weaker level > tournament. This is an offense that could get you kicked out of the > USCF for life. >>> > > Does Mr. Sloan concur that if Mr. Trice's words are true and he is > actually sandbagging he should be suspended from the USCF? No. Absolutely not. Even convicted mass murderers are allowed to be USCF members and are even given a discount rate as "prison members". 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. Many USCF members claim to have lost rating points to make themselves eligible for the Under-1400 prize at the World Open but most of them are just weak players who are making excuses, plus it just about never works. Sam Sloan     Date: 20 Jul 2008 14:55:23 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:ae36a7d1-1b6d-452d-bc77-c008bb0aa3c7@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 19, 11:56 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: >> <Ed Trice>: As I have said, once I "took over" the ID, "again", I >> deliberately tanked the rating to get it U1400 for the purpose of >> playing in the World Open> >> >> This is what the USCF website has to say about such practices (quoted >> fromhttp://main.uschess.org/content/vie...), specifically with >> respect to the lure of high prizes at the World Open. >> >> <<< This leads to occasional "sand-bagging," losing points on purpose >> to lower your rating artificially in order to play in a weaker level >> tournament. This is an offense that could get you kicked out of the >> USCF for life. >>> >> >> Does Mr. Sloan concur that if Mr. Trice's words are true and he is >> actually sandbagging he should be suspended from the USCF? > > No. Absolutely not. Even convicted mass murderers are allowed to be > USCF members and are even given a discount rate as "prison members". But what about sandbaggers? Sandbaggers are in it for the money, and cheat on their rating to get it. Sam Sloan supports this, so he says - on the principal, so he says, of such people being like murderers. > 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... > Many USCF members claim to have lost rating points to make themselves > eligible for the Under-1400 prize at the World Open but most of them > are just weak players who are making excuses, plus it just about never > works. 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. 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. Phil Innes > Sam Sloan   Date: 19 Jul 2008 09:56:47 From: Rob Subject: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF <Ed Trice >: As I have said, once I "took over" the ID, "again", I deliberately tanked the rating to get it U1400 for the purpose of playing in the World Open > This is what the USCF website has to say about such practices (quoted from http://main.uschess.org/content/vie...), specifically with respect to the lure of high prizes at the World Open. <<< This leads to occasional "sand-bagging," losing points on purpose to lower your rating artificially in order to play in a weaker level tournament. This is an offense that could get you kicked out of the USCF for life. >>> Does Mr. Sloan concur that if Mr. Trice's words are true and he is actually sandbagging he should be suspended from the USCF?   Date: 19 Jul 2008 04:57:07 From: Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile I have never been sued for anything, and, since law suits are matters of public record, this fabrication is remarkable even by Trice standards. Well=85 Ok. I feel the need to clarify one thing. While =93The Trice=94 has taken absolutely no legal action against me here on Planet Earth, I should also point out that, since it is well established that he runs a business selling property on Planet Mars, the possibility does exist that some action may have been taken against me through the Martian system of jurisprudence. If I had the money, I would check it out by personally visiting the Supreme Court of Mars, which was built on top of Olympus Mons, the largest mountain in the Solar System, so that the Justices may enjoy an incredible view while they dole out their unique form of particularly cruel justice. And, when they are not at work, they like to hang out with Arnold Schwarzenegger at his summer home located in Mars=92 northern polar caps, a property that Schwarzenegger purchased from Trice=92s company, legallyownlandonmars.com, according to the company=92s website. While there, they sit around, drink beer, and play Gothic Chess while listening to Martian Operas that chronicle the saga of Trice=92s heroic dealings with the late Bobby Fischer. Then they eat pie. References: http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=3Dlegallyownlandonmars.com&pro... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D54I8wqm2NeE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Mons   Date: 18 Jul 2008 16:59:16 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile 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?!? And 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 Fischer http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html RE: =91Most Hated Man In Chess=92, Ed Trice scamming a dying Bobby Fischer http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.html RE: Convicted Felon/Pedophile, Robert Snyder     Date: 24 Jul 2008 05:05:33 From: The Historian Subject: Innes' rating, if any On Jul 23, 1:01 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jul 23, 11:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > After is it, 600 references to my rating by Brennen and Kennedy, they still > > want to contest that someone who didn't play the game for 20 years and who > > could still score 2199 USCF is likely exaggerating their rating. > > A very short term provisional rating that rapidly plunged down to > 2000. > > > > > :)) > > > [& How would these patzers know anything about that, anyway? Neither of them > > even achieved the minimum rating I held in USA which was 2035] > > You spend a lot of time "refuting" someone who supposedly doesn't know > anything... > > Is this the same Kennedy who was 2270? if so, your math kind of sucks. I have some pages from a 1992 Indiana chess newsletter giving Kennedy's rating as 2299. It also has a heck of a good game Kennedy won as White in the English.     Date: 24 Jul 2008 04:01:25 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 23, 10:23=C2=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jul 23, 9:59=C2=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 23, 8:52 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 1:30 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 1:13 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 21, 12:43 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 11:53 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why s= et any at > > > > > > > all? > > > > > > > A good question for your buddy Bob Bennett. > > > > > > It is a good general question for anyone with an inkling of inter= est > > > > > in honestly discussing the topic.Where do you come down of follow= ing > > > > > the rules that are set in regards to the question that was posed = on > > > > > sandbagging? > > > > > > If you want to specifically discuss another topic, let me know. > > > > > Sandbagging almost never works. A player will have to drop his rati= ng > > > > at least 200 points and probably closer to 400 points to have a goo= d > > > > chance to win his section in the World Open. > > > > > On the other hand, computer cheaters and unknown masters arriving f= rom > > > > foreign countries are a real threat. > > > > > Sam Sloan > > > > Wikipedia has removed at Trice's request his information about the > > > Gothic Chess patent. He was unable to pay the service fee and his > > > patent lapsed. This makes all of the licensing contracts he had null > > > and void as Gothic Chess is now public domain. He also had his > > > fradulent posts of Gothic Chess tournaments removed from the > > > chessbanter website because of a legal threat from an enraged partent= . > > > Trice was showing a photo of a child playing a game sitting on the > > > floor of a USCF event and Trice claimed it was a huge Gothic chess > > > tournament. > > > > It appears he mis reresented his USCF ratings, the popularity of his > > > tournaments and much,much more. I knew eventually I would be > > > vindicated. There was never a need for me to discuss anything because > > > clumsy spiders ofter become entangled in their own webs. > > > When and where did these things happen? I do not see any mention of > > this on the Wikipedia biography, talk page or user page of Ed Trice. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ed_Trice > > > Are you still bitter because Ed Trice did not pay you $35,000 to > > arrange the Fischer-Karpov Match? > > > Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Check out the July 12, 2008 revisions and NO I am not bitter. We > suspected he had no money and was making things up and we were proven > correct. > > Latest     Date: 23 Jul 2008 11:01:40 From: SBD Subject: Re: Neil Brennen's claim to fame. On Jul 23, 11:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > After is it, 600 references to my rating by Brennen and Kennedy, they still > want to contest that someone who didn't play the game for 20 years and who > could still score 2199 USCF is likely exaggerating their rating. A very short term provisional rating that rapidly plunged down to 2000. > > :)) > > [& How would these patzers know anything about that, anyway? Neither of them > even achieved the minimum rating I held in USA which was 2035] You spend a lot of time "refuting" someone who supposedly doesn't know anything... Is this the same Kennedy who was 2270? if so, your math kind of sucks.       Date: 23 Jul 2008 11:27:44 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Neil Brennen's claim to fame. 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.         Date: 23 Jul 2008 15:17:17 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Neil Brennen's claim to fame. "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 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 a shame then that I held a more recent 2300 rating. Of course Greg is intelligent, he just can't write about chess without inserting his usual opinions of what was lacking in Fischer, Kasparov, etc. But both Rynd/Dowd and Murray ignore the grossest of Brennen's representation, which is their level of appreciation of a topic. They don't even care to notice the source of the issue, nor Brennen's behavior. That is because they fear him - will he do the same to them as he has done to all others? Maybe a little fascisme is okay with Rynd/Dowd and Murray? Maybe even people's wives are fair play? 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, no more thanm Brian Lafferty will answer a straight question about his own actions about a player's children, or Jerry Spinrad's honest desire for open dialog [except with anyone who doesn't agree with him] 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. Not by their words, but by their inactions, what such people snip away is their measure. I say again, the attack group which can only now print their shit here, terminated all other chess conversation in this newsgroup, the only one left where such as they can express themselves. I doubt they will notice that any more than they have noticed the grossest sort of representations by Brennen. These people do not care for chess, hate those who do. They are one-issue prosecutors, and they don't care who or what suffers thereby. Phil Innes           Date: 23 Jul 2008 14:45:28 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Neil Brennen's claim to fame. 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? >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). 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: 23 Jul 2008 08:23:38 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 23, 9:59=C2=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jul 23, 8:52 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 1:30 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 1:13 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 12:43 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 21, 11:53 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why set= any at > > > > > > all? > > > > > > A good question for your buddy Bob Bennett. > > > > > It is a good general question for anyone with an inkling of interes= t > > > > in honestly discussing the topic.Where do you come down of followin= g > > > > the rules that are set in regards to the question that was posed on > > > > sandbagging? > > > > > If you want to specifically discuss another topic, let me know. > > > > Sandbagging almost never works. A player will have to drop his rating > > > at least 200 points and probably closer to 400 points to have a good > > > chance to win his section in the World Open. > > > > On the other hand, computer cheaters and unknown masters arriving fro= m > > > foreign countries are a real threat. > > > > Sam Sloan > > > Wikipedia has removed at Trice's request his information about the > > Gothic Chess patent. He was unable to pay the service fee and his > > patent lapsed. This makes all of the licensing contracts he had null > > and void as Gothic Chess is now public domain. He also had his > > fradulent posts of Gothic Chess tournaments removed from the > > chessbanter website because of a legal threat from an enraged partent. > > Trice was showing a photo of a child playing a game sitting on the > > floor of a USCF event and Trice claimed it was a huge Gothic chess > > tournament. > > > It appears he mis reresented his USCF ratings, the popularity of his > > tournaments and much,much more. I knew eventually I would be > > vindicated. There was never a need for me to discuss anything because > > clumsy spiders ofter become entangled in their own webs. > > When and where did these things happen? I do not see any mention of > this on the Wikipedia biography, talk page or user page of Ed Trice. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ed_Trice > > Are you still bitter because Ed Trice did not pay you $35,000 to > arrange the Fischer-Karpov Match? > > Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Check out the July 12, 2008 revisions and NO I am not bitter. We suspected he had no money and was making things up and we were proven correct. Latest     Date: 23 Jul 2008 07:59:19 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 23, 8:52 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jul 21, 1:30 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 1:13 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 12:43 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 11:53 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why set any at > > > > > all? > > > > > A good question for your buddy Bob Bennett. > > > > It is a good general question for anyone with an inkling of interest > > > in honestly discussing the topic.Where do you come down of following > > > the rules that are set in regards to the question that was posed on > > > sandbagging? > > > > If you want to specifically discuss another topic, let me know. > > > Sandbagging almost never works. A player will have to drop his rating > > at least 200 points and probably closer to 400 points to have a good > > chance to win his section in the World Open. > > > On the other hand, computer cheaters and unknown masters arriving from > > foreign countries are a real threat. > > > Sam Sloan > > Wikipedia has removed at Trice's request his information about the > Gothic Chess patent. He was unable to pay the service fee and his > patent lapsed. This makes all of the licensing contracts he had null > and void as Gothic Chess is now public domain. He also had his > fradulent posts of Gothic Chess tournaments removed from the > chessbanter website because of a legal threat from an enraged partent. > Trice was showing a photo of a child playing a game sitting on the > floor of a USCF event and Trice claimed it was a huge Gothic chess > tournament. > > It appears he mis reresented his USCF ratings, the popularity of his > tournaments and much,much more. I knew eventually I would be > vindicated. There was never a need for me to discuss anything because > clumsy spiders ofter become entangled in their own webs. When and where did these things happen? I do not see any mention of this on the Wikipedia biography, talk page or user page of Ed Trice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ed_Trice Are you still bitter because Ed Trice did not pay you $35,000 to arrange the Fischer-Karpov Match? Sam Sloan     Date: 23 Jul 2008 06:52:21 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 21, 1:30=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jul 21, 1:13 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 12:43 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 11:53 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why set any= at > > > > all? > > > > A good question for your buddy Bob Bennett. > > > It is a good general question for anyone with an inkling of interest > > in honestly discussing the topic.Where do you come down of following > > the rules that are set in regards to the question that was posed on > > sandbagging? > > > If you want to specifically discuss another topic, let me know. > > Sandbagging almost never works. A player will have to drop his rating > at least 200 points and probably closer to 400 points to have a good > chance to win his section in the World Open. > > On the other hand, computer cheaters and unknown masters arriving from > foreign countries are a real threat. > > Sam Sloan Wikipedia has removed at Trice's request his information about the Gothic Chess patent. He was unable to pay the service fee and his patent lapsed. This makes all of the licensing contracts he had null and void as Gothic Chess is now public domain. He also had his fradulent posts of Gothic Chess tournaments removed from the chessbanter website because of a legal threat from an enraged partent. Trice was showing a photo of a child playing a game sitting on the floor of a USCF event and Trice claimed it was a huge Gothic chess tournament. It appears he mis reresented his USCF ratings, the popularity of his tournaments and much,much more. I knew eventually I would be vindicated. There was never a need for me to discuss anything because clumsy spiders ofter become entangled in their own webs.     Date: 21 Jul 2008 13:42:20 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 21, 1:30=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jul 21, 1:13 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 12:43 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 11:53 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why set any= at > > > > all? > > > > A good question for your buddy Bob Bennett. > > > It is a good general question for anyone with an inkling of interest > > in honestly discussing the topic.Where do you come down of following > > the rules that are set in regards to the question that was posed on > > sandbagging? > > > If you want to specifically discuss another topic, let me know. > > Sandbagging almost never works. A player will have to drop his rating > at least 200 points and probably closer to 400 points to have a good > chance to win his section in the World Open. > > On the other hand, computer cheaters and unknown masters arriving from > foreign countries are a real threat. > > Sam Sloan Let me ask it again. The question was not if it worked or was effective. It was a simple question: If, the USCF has clear rules against such behaivor (sandbagging) in a tournament, and If the person actually does break the rules and "sandbags";then what is the punishment and is the USCF willing to follow it's own rules? If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why set any at all?       Date: 21 Jul 2008 14:59:25 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] > wrote: >If, the USCF has clear rules against such behaivor (sandbagging) >in a tournament, and If the person actually does break the rules and >"sandbags";then what is the punishment and is the >USCF willing to follow it's own rules? >If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why set any >at all? A proven sandbagger, one who deliberately loses games to lower his or her rating, should not be permitted to play in USCF events. But the problem is proving sandbagging if the person legally challenges the exclusion.     Date: 21 Jul 2008 11:30:59 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 21, 1:13 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jul 21, 12:43 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 11:53 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why set any at > > > all? > > > A good question for your buddy Bob Bennett. > > It is a good general question for anyone with an inkling of interest > in honestly discussing the topic.Where do you come down of following > the rules that are set in regards to the question that was posed on > sandbagging? > > If you want to specifically discuss another topic, let me know. Sandbagging almost never works. A player will have to drop his rating at least 200 points and probably closer to 400 points to have a good chance to win his section in the World Open. On the other hand, computer cheaters and unknown masters arriving from foreign countries are a real threat. Sam Sloan     Date: 21 Jul 2008 11:13:08 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 21, 12:43=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jul 21, 11:53 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why set any at > > all? > > A good question for your buddy Bob Bennett. It is a good general question for anyone with an inkling of interest in honestly discussing the topic.Where do you come down of following the rules that are set in regards to the question that was posed on sandbagging? If you want to specifically discuss another topic, let me know.     Date: 21 Jul 2008 10:43:06 From: SBD Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 21, 11:53 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why set any at > all? A good question for your buddy Bob Bennett.     Date: 21 Jul 2008 09:53:19 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 20, 11:30=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jul 20, 4:47=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:42:24 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >Therefore - no principal is involved here - just pure personality poli= tics. > > > I agree. =A0The superintendent was involved, or perhaps the janitor or > > the butler. =A0None have any principles. > > We have not yet commented on the usage of sandbagging to mean the > opposite of its actual meaning (falsely inflating rather than > deflating your rating). Still, to me, these are above the norm for > Innes; at least it is possible to understand what they mean. > > Jerry Spinrad I always held that sandbagging was making it appear you had "less" of something than you actually did. In sales contests folks will often "sandbag" their contracts and only report lesser numbers until towards the end of a contest period . It sets your opponents at a disadvantage because they do not know the true stregnth of their competition. Sandbagging in a tournament would be disguising your true playing stregnth in order to take advantage of a less skilled or under prepaired opponent. If, the USCF has clear rules against such behaivor in a tournament, how can the public claim to be prepairing to break the USCF rules be ignored? If he actually does not break the rules... no problem. But if he does, then what is the punishment and is the USCF willing to follow it's own rules? If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why set any at all?       Date: 21 Jul 2008 18:34:27 From: help bot Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF Mike Murray wrote: > Big class prizes seem designed to (1) encourage participation and (2) > encourage cheating. > > In the good old days, class prizes were a kind of consolation for a > noble effort, not something in the ballpark with the overall > tournament winner's prize. When I tied for the Class C prize in the > 1966 U.S. Open, I got seventy-five bucks. By my calculations, if you had taken that money and bought shares of Wal-mart stock, and then reinvested the dividends and held until today, you would be a millionaire-- not bad for a Class C player. > The tournament winners got about $800 each. > And that's a reasonable ratio, IMO. Well, since grandmasters aren't very smart, I calculate that if they had invested their winnings in gold, they would at least not have /lost/ any money. ----------------------------------------------------------- Now, regarding the idea of encouraging participation... in what way does having sky- high entry fees do that? And what about the fact that a big, fat chunk of Joe Average's entry is funneled up to the top finishers, to the GMs (and perhaps a few lucky IMs)? Let's have a go at the idea of /conflict of interest/, shall we? It is in the Honcho Big Cheese's financial interest to allow folks to sandbag, since that gets them to enter, thinking they can win big money in spite of their lack of ability to compete with the GMs. So we can see that BG and his ilk have no financial incentive to enforce sandbagging rules-- just the opposite. Without enforce- ment by TDs, such rules have no teeth. More to the point, it was sheer lunacy to expect folks to drive their Ford Falcon's or Chevy Bel Aires all the way to Seattle, Washington for that event, some thousands of miles by back roads. Is it any wonder then, that you were able to win a section? The only thing I can see which was more ridiculous, was the event held in, of all places, Hawaii -- which even a Volkswagen Beetle could not reach. Please-- try to think things through before selecting a site which almost no one can reach. I can see Chicago, St. Louis, Philadelphia-- maybe even Tulsa, but Seattle or Hawaii? Are chess players presumed to be /made of money/? Look, just get out a map of the continental United States, and any fool can see that if you give a bit of extra weight to where the population actually lives, dead center is Indianapolis, Indiana-- the crossroads of America; that is the most sensible place to hold a U.S. Open. Duh. -- help bot         Date: 22 Jul 2008 05:46:00 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:34:27 -0700 (PDT), help bot <[email protected] > wrote: >Mike Murray wrote: >> Big class prizes seem designed to (1) encourage participation and (2) >> encourage cheating. >----------------------------------------------------------- > Now, regarding the idea of encouraging >participation... in what way does having sky- >high entry fees do that? And what about the >fact that a big, fat chunk of Joe Average's entry >is funneled up to the top finishers, to the GMs >(and perhaps a few lucky IMs)? The sky-high entry fees don't encourage participation. Neither does the fact that the entry fees from the lower sections usually subsidize prizes in the top section. But the huge class prizes encourage participation more than these other factors discourage it.     Date: 20 Jul 2008 21:30:07 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 20, 4:47=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:42:24 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >Therefore - no principal is involved here - just pure personality politi= cs. > > I agree. =A0The superintendent was involved, or perhaps the janitor or > the butler. =A0None have any principles. We have not yet commented on the usage of sandbagging to mean the opposite of its actual meaning (falsely inflating rather than deflating your rating). Still, to me, these are above the norm for Innes; at least it is possible to understand what they mean. Jerry Spinrad       Date: 21 Jul 2008 15:48:53 From: help bot Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF Mike Murray wrote: > >If, the USCF has clear rules against such behaivor (sandbagging) > >in a tournament, and If the person actually does break the rules and > >"sandbags";then what is the punishment and is the > >USCF willing to follow it's own rules? > > >If they are not willing to follow rules they set.. then why set any > >at all? > > A proven sandbagger, one who deliberately loses games to lower his or > her rating, should not be permitted to play in USCF events. But the > problem is proving sandbagging if the person legally challenges the > exclusion. We need to be careful here, as there are a lot of nutters out there who will claim to "know" or be able to "detect" deliberate throwing of games just by looking at the moves, or even by injecting their own fantasies into the equation. One famous example was Larry Evans, who not only insisted he was smarter than everybody else, but that he alone could magically tell the difference between "normal" errors and deliberate ones. When wiser folks than he pointed out that chess books are filled with examples of errors similar to those he arbitrarily decided must have been "deliberate", there was no response-- the infamous Evans' "radio silence" strategy. In my younger days, I ran across a few local players who were quite obviously attempting to remain in the so-called reserve sections, by alternately winning first place and then quickly tossing the gained points by throwing games in lesser events with insignificant prizes. All I can say is it worked at the time, for the same names would almost invariably appear in our state magazine under reserve-section winners. Many would consider the actual amount of money at stake here to be chump-change, as this is not on par with, say, the World Open; but there was also the idea of appearing as a section winner-- the fame and the glory, you see. But, back to the top point made by Rob Mitchell regarding "if the USCF has clear rules..."; it does not. The rules against the throwing of games involve whether games are thrown *deliberately*, so it is not a simple matter at all, for unless a player is known to turn green when throwing games this way, it is difficult to tell the difference between such things and the very common legitimate error. This is why I prefer an approach which ignores idiotic claims of having psychic powers, in favor of observation and thought. When a certain player consistently wins big events with ease, but also consistently loses rating points with equal ease, remaining just below the cut-off point between sections, I conclude that it was deliberate; I have motive, opportunity, and math on my side -- against the freak possibility of a one-in-a-million fluke (like say, nearly-IMnes or Sam Sloan winning the World Open). I think Mr. Sloan is correct in saying that the use of computers and the influx of strong foreign players is, perhaps, a greater threat these days than classic sandbagging. This is in part due to the way in which big organizers "milk" the big tourneys for profits; when I last attended one of the infamous BG tourneys, the TDs locked themselves away, deliberately, and it was something of a free- for-all. Well, nobody succeeded in cheating against me in the end, but that was not for a lack of trying. (Hint: get plenty of sleep if you want to get more than a headache out of such monster events. If you believe you may be under-rated by just one class, fuggetabouddit.) -- help bot         Date: 21 Jul 2008 16:16:55 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:48:53 -0700 (PDT), help bot <[email protected] > wrote: >When a certain player consistently wins big >events with ease, but also consistently loses >rating points with equal ease, remaining just >below the cut-off point between sections, I >conclude that it was deliberate; I have motive, >opportunity, and math on my side -- against >the freak possibility of a one-in-a-million fluke >(like say, nearly-IMnes or Sam Sloan winning >the World Open). > I think Mr. Sloan is correct in saying that >the use of computers and the influx of strong >foreign players is, perhaps, a greater threat >these days than classic sandbagging. This >is in part due to the way in which big >organizers "milk" the big tourneys for profits; Big class prizes seem designed to (1) encourage participation and (2) encourage cheating. In the good old days, class prizes were a kind of consolation for a noble effort, not something in the ballpark with the overall tournament winner's prize. When I tied for the Class C prize in the 1966 U.S. Open, I got seventy-five bucks. The tournament winners got about $800 each. And that's a reasonable ratio, IMO.     Date: 21 Jul 2008 12:56:35 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF thumbody wrote: > > samsloan wrote: > . > > Especially > > objectionable was his gay-bashing post a few days ago. I hope that you > > and everybody else missed that one. > > Oh! you mean where he referenced Erika? I'd hardly call that > vilification..     Date: 21 Jul 2008 12:43:21 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF samsloan wrote: . > Especially > objectionable was his gay-bashing post a few days ago. I hope that you > and everybody else missed that one. Oh! you mean where he referenced Erika? I'd hardly call that villification..     Date: 20 Jul 2008 19:29:18 From: help bot Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 20, 6:28 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > > The question begs; is Phil so bad at grammar and spelling or is he > > really just putting everyone on. > It's hard to imagine someone faking Innes' degree of stupidity. Therein lies the beauty of it-- just as Clark Kent fooled everyone with his "mild-mannered" act, when in reality he was Batman by night. -- help bot     Date: 20 Jul 2008 16:10:57 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 20, 5:37 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jul 20, 6:04 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mike Murray wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:42:24 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >> Therefore - no principal is involved here - just pure personality politics. > > > > I agree. The superintendent was involved, or perhaps the janitor or > > > the butler. None have any principles. > > > The question begs; is Phil so bad at grammar and spelling or is he > > really just putting everyone on. > > The posts by Phil Innes have become much worse in the past few days. I > am beginning to think that he is mentally ill or something. Especially > objectionable was his gay-bashing post a few days ago. I hope that you > and everybody else missed that one. > > Sam Sloan I disagree. His death threat to me back in 2002 was pretty nutty. So are his frantic defenses of his self-described "2450" rating as a "nearly an IM", his various statements about language, etc.       Date: 23 Jul 2008 12:17:17 From: Chess One Subject: Neil Brennen's claim to fame. "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:e5ffb7a3-e253-4c1c-ab88-8d23e7421a30@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 20, 5:37 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Jul 20, 6:04 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Mike Murray wrote: >> > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:42:24 -0400, "Chess One" >> > > <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> >> > >> Therefore - no principal is involved here - just pure personality >> > >> politics. >> >> > > I agree. The superintendent was involved, or perhaps the janitor or >> > > the butler. None have any principles. >> >> > The question begs; is Phil so bad at grammar and spelling or is he >> > really just putting everyone on. >> >> The posts by Phil Innes have become much worse in the past few days. I >> am beginning to think that he is mentally ill or something. Especially >> objectionable was his gay-bashing post a few days ago. I hope that you >> and everybody else missed that one. >> >> Sam Sloan > > I disagree. His death threat to me back in 2002 was pretty nutty. So > are his frantic defenses of his self-described "2450" rating as a > "nearly an IM", his various statements about language, etc. What's this? Must have been some serious threat for me not to have heard from the police! That is no minor accusation! Brennen wholesales his understanding as usual, having never heard the phrase that the sharper thing than wit is a writ. & Why did I write that? Please read on... Neil Brennen also does not disclose that the circumstance he mentions is his own mocking of my wife's treatment with language as disgusting as used by the FSS by an anon who followed ONLY Brennen's posts - and who Brennen subsequently suggested is me! I have written THAT 10 times here. That is what Brennen mocks. That is his degree of honesty. What a scandal merchant Brennen is! But too studid to sue! I would likely have to prove his sanity for any successful action to take place, and how should I do that? Same is his scandalising of everything he reads he is jealous of. I never said I was 2400, but that was what an IM was. The context was that I was correcting Brennen on a chess painting - saying that it is impossible to find any mate in 3 - since although the piece in hand in the painting was unclear, the gap in White's line up was clear- so it was a queen most likely, and lone queens [or any piece] against an almost unmoved black array are extremely unlikely to achieve mate in 3! After is it, 600 references to my rating by Brennen and Kennedy, they still want to contest that someone who didn't play the game for 20 years and who could still score 2199 USCF is likely exaggerating their rating. :)) [& How would these patzers know anything about that, anyway? Neither of them even achieved the minimum rating I held in USA which was 2035] But that is the level of all Brennen's posts. A sort of self-idiotic denial of other people's experience and knowledge, culminating in the fantastic phrase "Old English is dead" which requires 4 words of Old English to say so. Imagine suing someone capable of stating that - does the person understand anything at all of what he says? Can you sue for pure invective and hate speech, even if your correspondent self-declares his idiocy? THAT is the level of idiocy we see here. There is hardly any chess discussion from his 1-Idea support group, who do not make such outright howlers as Brennen in their enthusiastic pursuit of what they can't get themselves <lol > but in their vagaries nevertheless commit all sorts of self-contradictory sins, while being entirely unconscious of their own motivation. These half dozen public abusers of other people's real lives now celebrate each other's wit, by calling those who have achieved something in chess by such names as occur to them, and suggesting mental illness and other Sam McCarthy Sloanisms about EVERYONE who still bothers to contest their consistently vile behavior. Brennen also does this in other newsgroups to which he makes similar contribution as here to chess. These twits think they are winning something - but have actually excluded real chess discussions here. Fabulously, Jerry Spinrad says he is up for public discussion, excepting with me, who holds another opinion than he does. These people are killing the thing they never loved at all. Phil Innes     Date: 20 Jul 2008 15:37:26 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 20, 6:04 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote: > Mike Murray wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:42:24 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> Therefore - no principal is involved here - just pure personality politics. > > > I agree. The superintendent was involved, or perhaps the janitor or > > the butler. None have any principles. > > The question begs; is Phil so bad at grammar and spelling or is he > really just putting everyone on. The posts by Phil Innes have become much worse in the past few days. I am beginning to think that he is mentally ill or something. Especially objectionable was his gay-bashing post a few days ago. I hope that you and everybody else missed that one. Sam Sloan       Date: 21 Jul 2008 08:02:56 From: Chess One Subject: Sam McCarthy Sloan, what he is beginning to think... "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Jul 20, 6:04 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote: >> Mike Murray wrote: >> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:42:24 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Therefore - no principal is involved here - just pure personality >> >> politics. >> >> > I agree. The superintendent was involved, or perhaps the janitor or >> > the butler. None have any principles. >> >> The question begs; is Phil so bad at grammar and spelling or is he >> really just putting everyone on. > > The posts by Phil Innes have become much worse in the past few days. I > am beginning to think that he is mentally ill or something. 5 successive posts by people writing ad hominem, and with no topical mention whatsover; and this crew declare others insane or insensible! ROUGHING THE FISCHER Sam Sloan eggs everyone on, since in discussing ed Trice he felt necessary to volunteer the topic of Fischer and also convicted murderers - he did not quite manage to take part in anything subsequent to these mentions, or why he was 'beginning to think' they had any relevance whatever. Just recently Sloan attacked a volunteer of the month for having no rating, patently ignoring that top TD Carol Jerecki had no rating either. Is this personality politics? Well, the genius crew writing here ignore that it is because that is what they do, and instead volunteer their wit by note of the typo 'principal'. But they don't address the issue of principle, since their own is the same as Sloan's - which is to say, if they have any they don't volunteer them here, and that absense is notable. The only valid topical contribution was from Mike Murray who mentioned that Fischer was 'granted' a life-membership, notwithstanding that he wished /not/ to be associated with USCF, but Mike cut that part out from his response. All we really need to complete the crew is for Jerry Spinrad to show up and declare that whatever is in Goichberg's "secret material" is no reason for Goichberg to resign, in Jerry's opinion. HOW THEY DO IT This genius crew of distance-psychologists excise all mention of USCF's activities - since IMO they have trouble thinking about anything other than people - they react negatively to those who do mention chess rather than only mention personality, in order to dumb down every subject to their own insensible level. When -ROFL- I mention this //complete// personality orientation to the Sloan, he cuts it! And then he carries on to declare in public that because I notice his behavior, he is beginning to think I am mentally ill. In fact, there is no credible other psychological explanation for these activities - which are subconcious-mechanisms designed to level their own low self-esteem with projections which diminish others to their level or below it. WHILE WE ARE SHRINKING Since the crew like the subject of psychology, I should point out to them that this is a very common device, not at all unusual, and not to worry about it overmuch. As above, it is a /mechanism/ and its necessary! The only other alternative is to find something about their own activities which will restore their self-esteem, which is to say, to overcome their guilt, since for sure and for certain this is a guilt-symptom. But this observation needs to beabout their own selves and not the personalities of other people they encounter. And that's a little bit of work - and its nothing to get off on in public - but would admit them instead to public adult life. Anyway, its a choice to indulge themselves as robotically driven by unconscious juvenalia, repressed guilt, and a disinclination to take a look at it, while only being brave in public about others, declaring them crazy, etc. This is another, for sure, symptom of something amiss in their lives. The clinching argument is actually a very good one! Do you prefer wasting your life commenting on other's lives, rather than attending your own? One means to recovery is to attempt to actually write on topic with others, not minding so much who writes, but what is written about, and not so much what others write, but what you yourself can manage. In fact, that is a normal standard of adult behavior. No charge for this session, however, time's up. Phil Innes > Especially > objectionable was his gay-bashing post a few days ago. I hope that you > and everybody else missed that one. > > Sam Sloan         Date: 23 Jul 2008 12:58:15 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Sam McCarthy Sloan, what he is beginning to think... Chess One wrote: . > The clinching argument is actually a very good one! Do you prefer wasting > your life commenting on other's lives, rather than attending your own? It's called entertainment Phil. You need to lighten-up & not allow the frivolous side of human nature put you off your bread & tapenade. Yes, yes - I know it's a chess group & we should all be really concerned whether 1-h3 is a good move or not, but cut your bros. some slack lad.. Am following the Tour de France. This morning they climbed ever higher (9000') to reach the summit of the loftiest road in Europe - then it was all downhill, 90kph, hairpin bends no suspension! The mantra seemed to be 'enjoy the danger & have no fear' hehe - scary stuff. Brilliant scenery btw.. t. > One > means to recovery is to attempt to actually write on topic with others, not > minding so much who writes, but what is written about, and not so much what > others write, but what you yourself can manage. > > In fact, that is a normal standard of adult behavior. No charge for this > session, however, time's up. > > Phil Innes > > > Especially > > objectionable was his gay-bashing post a few days ago. I hope that you > > and everybody else missed that one. > > > > Sam Sloan         Date: 21 Jul 2008 13:21:53 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Sam McCarthy Sloan, what he is beginning to think... On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:02:56 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >The only valid topical contribution was from Mike Murray who mentioned that >Fischer was 'granted' a life-membership, notwithstanding that he wished >/not/ to be associated with USCF, but Mike cut that part out from his >response. I didn't cut anything that was relevant. A life member doesn't lose membership by claiming in a radio or newspaper interview, or in casual conversations that he wants nothing to do with the organization. He would have had to write or call the USCF and formally request his membership be cancelled. This is exactly what he did about his inclusion in the Encyclopedia Judaica, but AFAIK, he didn't do this with the USCF.           Date: 22 Jul 2008 17:13:36 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Sam McCarthy Sloan, what he is beginning to think... On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:21:53 -0700, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:02:56 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]> >wrote: >>The only valid topical contribution was from Mike Murray who mentioned that >>Fischer was 'granted' a life-membership, notwithstanding that he wished >>/not/ to be associated with USCF, but Mike cut that part out from his >>response. >I didn't cut anything that was relevant. A life member doesn't lose >membership by claiming in a radio or newspaper interview, or in casual >conversations that he wants nothing to do with the organization. He >would have had to write or call the USCF and formally request his >membership be cancelled. This is exactly what he did about his >inclusion in the Encyclopedia Judaica, but AFAIK, he didn't do this >with the USCF. In another thread, Louis Blair cites a post by Mike Nolan, which pretty much indicates he *did* do this, so I stand corrected: "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)         Date: 21 Jul 2008 14:34:18 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Sam McCarthy Sloan, what he is beginning to think... > The posts by Phil Innes have become much worse in the past few days. I > am beginning to think that he is mentally ill or something. Especially > objectionable was his gay-bashing post a few days ago. I hope that you > and everybody else missed that one. > > Sam Sloan And just so everybody understands it unequivocally, when Eric Johnson used to post here, and was abused as a homo, I was the //only// person addressing posters to his comments, not his personal sexual preferences. I defended Eric's right to say as he pleased without personal reference, and I scarcely agreed with Eric! Brave-Mouth Sloan was faint indeed on those occasions! Unless that isn't brilliantly clear, on all those occasions. What awful crime I have now committed against gay people the Sloan don't bother to say - except he does say that no-one else picked up on it, and surely this is cause for HYSTERIA !!!! What a slut Sloan is! Not even a brave slut. Just a big mouth that can only do as he does to get attention. Net-group trash, in fact. What the Sloan might consider is that there could be content to any post, and there need be no //blame// about posting about contant. In a casual review of his past 100,000 posts, there is predominantly //blame//. Blame seems to be the Sloans main force, and you don't even need to justify your blaming, since there is so much to blame others for. If you don't find blame then you maybe got the FSS! [Psychological hint to the Sloan: Blame = Denial] ;)) Sloan is a typical chess politico hack. While posing as an outsider, he is merely an outre-gauche insider. I challenged Sloan long ago to this attitude of his, which avoids adult responsibility for public speech. Its not free! It costs something. The way the Sloan writes is as if it were 'freebie'. But the real way it is, is hard work, some inspiration, but mostly hard work on impersonal issues which have to do with establishing systems, not egos. Otherwise chess stays as it is, the barefoot and always poor, pregnant consort of ego monsters seeking O! so little bits of power over others. The Sloan is now old enough to grow up, and stop making irresponsible flings against others. Gawd knows! There are enough issues to deal with in our structurally eroded national chess scene as would need a small squadron of people to address. But the Sloan must still think of his own ambition always, and do the usual thing, attempt to divide and rule. It hardly seems to mater to him how he does that. Though, I imagine even his friends notice his fixation on power. Having dreamed of 'partnering' Polgar, then detested her own choice of partner, then blasting a few people willing to make public comments about that, myself, Rob Mitchell, Greg Alexander, you don't need a grey beard and to come from Vienna to get it. That route for the Sloan is closed. He will never get re-elected to USCF, therefore sobriety and attention to content rather than personality is his last hope. Maybe he is afraid of McCarthy's own fate? A year after he could not speak his bile, he was dead - as if hate of his own country kept him alive - though what an awful vampiric relationship that was. The Sloan is so unaware of himself that he snips these sorts of comments, and blithely carries on, impressing such as the BRAIN & crew - as many as 10 people in all. Phil Innes     Date: 20 Jul 2008 15:28:21 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Ed Trice should be banned for life from the USCF On Jul 20, 5:04 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote: > Mike Murray wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:42:24 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> Therefore - no principal is involved here - just pure personality politics. > > > I agree. The superintendent was involved, or perhaps the janitor or > > the butler. None have any principles. > > The question begs; is Phil so bad at grammar and spelling or is he > really just putting everyone on. It's hard to imagine someone faking Innes' degree of stupidity.   Date: 17 Jul 2008 05:49:10 From: Rook House Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile On Jul 16, 10:19 am, Ed Trice <[email protected] wrote: > Links to some tournaments that people say never happened > > http://www.gothicchess.com/tournaments/sn3. > > http://www.gothicchess.com/tournaments/conor. > > http://www.gothicchess.com/tournaments/supernats. > > http://www.gothicchess.com/tournaments/dave_bryan. > > http://www.gothicchess.com/tournaments/ed_dave. > That's pathetic. Those pictures prove absolutely nothing. All I see are a few people playing some off-hand games of Gothic chess at a REAL chess tournament. Where are the 4000+ people playing Gothic chess? Hell, where are the 20+ people playing Gothic chess? No tables, no chairs, no proof .......... your supposed tournaments are about as classy as you are. Another example of a complete moron who is completely unable to produce any facts to support his numerous lies.   Date: 17 Jul 2008 04:23:30 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile Ed Trice, you can=92t even see how foolish you look. You claim 4000+ player tournaments, yet you can=92t even show an organized event with six boards in an organized tournament setting. Where are the clocks, where are the scoresheets? Where 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. Here=92s some picture of how actual attended events look like, not imaginary: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Chess_tournament_1= .jpg/800px-Chess_tournament_1.jpg http://www.boardlink.bz/Obj/B000309001/Images/AsianYouthInd0China.JPG http://www.greenvillechessclub.org/images/Tournament%20room%20of%20at%20200= 8%20Land%20of%20the%20Sky.JPG 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??? When 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.=94 http://www.gothicchess.com/tournaments/sn3. =93In 2003 we had 1640. Here=92s a panoramic view of this event:=94 http://www.gothicchess.com/tournaments/conor. =93In 2004, over 2000. Here=92s a panoramic view of this event.=94 http://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. Here=92s a panoramic view of this event.=94 http://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!! I=92m the LOONEY!!   Date: 14 Jul 2008 14:12:07 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile Trice removed all my posts from his homepage. Luckily, my CA attorney, David Affeld taught me long time ago to save everything!! Here's what was removed off Trice's page ... please diseminate!! Jul-13-08 Ed Trice: Labate, You have never "served" me anything, you know it, I know it. Nothing will happen in "22 days." From your posting you claimed to have mailed something to 1735 Market Street, which is a Mailboxes Etc in the basement of the Mellon Bank building. You can mail a letter to Santa Clause there and he will sign for it. If you had such a "strong case" you wouldn't need all of your internet cronies to offer you their support. And, every attorney always advises their clients NOT TO MENTION ONGOING MATTERS, no matter what they happen to be. I know you have no attorney, so keep blowing smoke up your own ass all you want. Jul-11-08 Edward Labate: <Jun-16-08 JonDSouzaEva: Mr Trice - is it true that you are now a British citizen? > And your answer is??????? 22 days TIC TIC TIC Jul-11-08 robmtchl: Noticed from your website that your phone number also matches www.legallyownlandonmars.com Are you a Martian land speculator now? Jul-11-08 MageOfMaple: The mars land site is definitely Trice, you can see it in the DNS registration: http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?d... Jul-11-08 Edward Labate: <Jul-08-08 Ed Trice: <JonDSouzaEva > You are Ed Labate. Why else are you just a posting clone for him? > I don't know...maybe because you threatened to 'hunt him down' in November 2006. Most people don't take kindly to being threatened. I'm sure Jon is the same way. And Trice, you know damn well I only post as Edward Labate. Especially since you've communicated with Jon since 2006, long before you ever contacted me and tried to sell me your 'My 61 Memorable Games' project. I made the mistake once of using another name, and look at the grief it caused. Therefore, for the last six months and for evermore, I only post as Edward Labate. Unlike you, I don't have to hide, or deny who I am, or have to invent friends. If you strive to always do what's right, even if not 100% successful all the time, you'll still do very well in the long run. A lesson you still might learn, but I'm not a betting man! Why you've chosen to take's life's slimely path is incomprehensible especially since now, the authorities have caught on to you. Yes Ed, legallyownlandonmars.com has been SHUT DOWN. It was a nice touch, claiming the Governor of California was one of your clients. EINSTEIN!!! As I said in January, I don't envy you. Jul-11-08 robmtchl: Edward, Legallyownlandonars has not been shut down...yet. Jul-11-08 ChicoChuck: I've been doing business with and have been a good friend of Edward Labate for over twenty years, and I can assure all readers that Mr. Labate is absolutely, positively NOT posting as JonDSouzaEva. He only posts as Edward Labate. Jul-11-08 MageOfMaple: Legallyownlandonmars has been up and down recently... But the link to Martian property owned by celebrities is a dead link. I wonder why. MageOfMaple: Trice admits being behind legallyownlandonmars.com but says that it is obviously a "prototype" that you would have to be "stupid" to take seriously. But there is an entire page explaining that there are no international treaties preventing the sale of Martian property and explaining how such a sale is possible. Strange thing to include on a "prototype." Then there is also a section explaining that numerous famous personalities have already made purchases =96 obviously a misrepresentation if they don't really sell Martian real estate as Trice now claims. Trice also said "We sell the modules with REAL DATA to real estate companies all over the USA." Who's we, I wonder? According to his Linked-In page he works for "Four Incorporated." Um=85 Yeah. That's the fictional company that employs the Fantastic Four in the Marvel comic. But hey, I think that's awesome! I wonder if he'd introduce me to the Invisible Woman? 'cause she's really hot. when she's visible. Jul-13-08 Ed Trice: Legallyownlandonmars.com was a PROTYPE website designed to show how to link NAVIGATION functions to a large database that could be pinged in real time. If you click on the MAP link across the top: http://www.legallyownlandonmars.com... You can see this. Click on GO EAST and you would be at this page http://www.legallyownlandonmars.com... Click on BROWSE PROPERTIES AVAILABLE FROM HERE and you would get this html page http://www.legallyownlandonmars.com... again, generated from "pinging" a real time transaction database. The point: We picked the MOST OBVIOUS location with "fake data" yet could still DEMONSTRATE functionality to real estate companies. We sell the modules with REAL DATA to real estate companies all over the USA. Congratulations on finding this prototype website and being STUPID enough to believe we were selling land on Mars. Maybe if you would have clicked on the TERMINOLOGY link http://www.legallyownlandonmars.com... =2E..you would have realized this. Jul-13-08 Ed Trice: And if there was any ever doubt, if you clicked on the MAP enough you would find http://www.legallyownlandonmars.com... Jul-13-08 Ed Trice: I see Mr. "Send me $30,000 so I can pay the $50,000 I owe Titus Keiningham", also known as 'Rob Mitchell', has signed on. So Rob, you really contacted Fischer and Karpov before I did, right? Susan Polgar said you contacted her and had no idea how to reach either of them. Jul-13-08 Ed Trice: Labate, I know you have no attorney, so keep blowing smoke up your own ass all you want. Jul-13-08 Ed Trice: P.S. The Gothic Chess Association vacated 1735 Market Street in 2002. Prove otherwise. I will enjoy your response to this! Jul-13-08 Edward Labate: <Ed Trice: I know you have no attorney... > You're right Ed, just ignore everything, it's all a dream!! Jul-13-08 Edward Labate: Dear BANKRUPT BUFOON, I know you weren't selling land on Mars since you didn't have ownership. But when has ownership stopped you from running a scam. And why would anyone with a knowledge of your history, click on the Terminology link. Who cares about the details from a conman? We see Trice running another scam, no need to look further. And as Rook House has chronicled, here's an incomplete list of your scams. --He lied about raising 15 million dollars for a Fischer Gothic Chess Match. -- He claimed to write the world champion checkers program, but shows no proof of this. -- He claimed that Donald Trump wanted to buy the patent for "Gothic Chess" from him, but he wouldn't sell (although he's declared bankruptcy), even when being offered a 7 figure sum. -- He tried to scam the entire chess world and completely disrespected Bobby Fischer with his "My 61 Memorable Games" scam, as confirmed by Cathy Purdy, Frank Camaratta, Bruce Towell, Dan Heisman and myself. -- After getting caught red-handed (the evidence is overwhelming) with his "My 61 Memorable Games" scam, you try to pin it on me, and that's one of the two counts of my $21.2M lawsuit against you. -- He created several aliases (Scarlet Rose, Victor Rose, etc.), posted lies to chess newsgroups with them, and even after he was busted, continues to lie and deny that they were him. -- Claims he was never married to cover some other lie that he told, but then turned around on another site and is quoted as saying "I was there with my wife Ellie" when referring to a trip to Paris. -- He claims to be a 2200 rated player, but facts show that he's a mid-1300 player. He lies about that until he can't lie any more, THEN claims that the "Ed Trice" on USCF's rating site is not even really him, it's his cousin, yet has a link to the rating site on his own Wiki page that clearly shows that he's lying. He's too stupid to even be a good liar. -- He claims one day to be a British citizen, but then the very next day (when it's convenient for his argument) hides behind the fact that he's a U.S. citizen and has rights. Talk about lying so much that YOU don't even know what the truth is anymore. -- He claims to have pictures AND video from all of his Gothic chess events that support the ridiculous attendance numbers that he lied about, yet he refuses to produce any of these. -- He claimed that Burt Rutan owned land on Mars and Mr. Rutan personally denied these claims and has never heard of Trice -- Makes trip to Iceland with Frank Camaratta, but never meets Fischer. Supposedly goes to Iceland again by himself (with no witnesses) and magically meets Fischer with nobody around to verify this. Who are all the people that were in attendance with your meeting with Bobby Fischer? Names pal, we NEED names?? I'm very confident that Bobby Fischer would never have had a first meeting alone with an obscure D player; who had just lost his house in 2003, filed for bankruptcy in 2004, http://tinyurl.com/49rkog and now shows up in Iceland in 2006 saying he's got $15M for a match with Karpov. "Sure, Trice...where do I sign???" And finally, still waiting for this answer: <Jun-16-08 JonDSouzaEva: Mr Trice - is it true that you are now a British citizen? > And your answer is??????? > 20 days TIC TIC TIC Jul-13-08 ughaibu: So, almost all my posts on these pages have been deleted. That's pretty @#$%ing ridiculous. Jul-14-08 Edward Labate: You're a pathetic creature Trice. You have only one mode of defense, DENIAL. You never disprove things, you mock, you deny, you cuss, you get vulgar, you get revolting (the brother-sister comment should have been even beneath you, but I guess lower than a snake is more accurate than I thought) you add more lies, but you never ever REFUTE with 3rd party validations. And providing a link back to your own site is not a refutation, but more lies in print. <Ed Trice: Labate, You have never "served" me anything, you know it, I know it. > FALSE, we have signed return receipts, which is adequate for a company. Check with your lawyer, the service is good...or don't you have a lawyer yet?? As you already know, my attorney is Alfred T. Newell IV in Birmingham, the leading libel/defamation attorney in the state. If you don't have an attorney yet, then for the time being, I guess you would be your own attorney. In that case, you may contact him directly: Alfred T. Newell IV, Attorney at Law PO Box 101432 Birmingham, AL 35210 (866) 579-4709 Now, on another note: You contacted me last August offering me the chance to get in on your 'My 61 Memorable Games' scam. "you know it, I know it." Why you choose to pin it on me, is the #1 reason I will not settle out of court with you. I want to read your discoveries and hear your deposition in person. I am looking forward to my day in court against you. You can beat your chest all you want here, but my day in court is nearing!! 20 Days TIC TIC TIC Jul-14-08 Edward Labate: <Ed Trice: I see...also known as 'Rob Mitchell', has signed on. > <From: [email protected] Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:23:24 -0400 Subject: Re: Non-Disclosure compliance: 3rd request To: 'Rob Mitchell' I'll save you a great deal of effort. I rescinded my US Citizenship in July of 2006 when the Fischer-Kaprov match took shape and we accumulated over $20 million in pledged European airing contracts should the event take place. I did so under advice of my attorneys at Hodgson Russ LLC, who said any moneys I receive as a US citizen could be in jeopardy otherwise. It was a recalcitrant process to swear allegiance to the Crown, which took a tremendous amount of effort to overcome the coddling request to maintain dual citizenship. I did so as a single citizen of England, and England only. I managed to complete the ordeal in a record timely fashion. I own property in the West End of London, I've been 'on the books' as a full time consultant and contractor there, and I am still, in every respect, an English citizen with a British Passport currently on American soil. I have not, as of yet, re-patriated myself. So make all the noise you want, I'm not motivated in any way to respond. > Gee, shouldn't INS have been notified at the World Open?? Does Ed Trice have a green card?? Is it possible that Ed Trice is an illegal alien?? I mean, it's not a coincidence that his initials are 'ET', is it????   Date: 10 Jul 2008 00:00:27 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile Ed Trice says: "It is the same issue that Labate used to claim I never met Fischer." Who are all the people that were in attendance with your meeting with Bobby Fischer? Names pal, we NEED names?? I'm very confident that Bobby Fischer would never have had a first meeting alone with an obscure D player; who had just lost his house in 2003, filed for bankruptcy in 2004, http://tinyurl.com/49rkog and now shows up in Iceland saying he's got $15M dollars for a match with Karpov. Sure, Trice...where do I sign??? ...the big three - Buffet, Trump....Trice?!?!?! 23 days... TIC TIC TIC   Date: 08 Jul 2008 00:41:43 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile =46rom Ed Trice: =93OK Ed, let's hear your explanation. I'm sure someone who always tells the truth has a very good explanation.=94 My explanation Trice??? You can=92t read=85you=92re an IDIOT. Jon DSouzaEva is an Englishman with a BCF grading of 173, pretty close to yours at the direction your rating=92s taking, Mr. 1352!! Look it up yourself. http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getplayers.php?players=3DD%27Souza-Eva&in= active=3D1 List of players by name Ref Name Sex Age Club(s) Category Grade Last Year Cat Rapid Last Year 264249K D'Souza-Eva, Daniel M 8 Oxford High School A 27 15 110291G D'Souza-Eva, Jon M Cowley C 173 173 E 158 158 2 Record(s) Found ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So =91I=92 wrote to Edward and should sign =91Edward=92??? So it should lo= ok like this to make any sense??? =93 Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:08 PM To: Edward Labate Subject: Trice arrested! Hi Edward, I can't make head or tail of this one: http://tinyurl.com/4u4ne9 It's definitely "our" Ed Trice. If I read it correctly, he was arrested for harassment of some kind, appealed, and was found not guilty. Best wishes, Edward=94 Please note: To: Edward Hi Edward Best Wishes, Edward!! Nice work COLOMBO!! Yep, makes a lot sense Trice. Here=92s the original email that I simply copied and pasted, and removed Jon=92s name from the public posting: =93 From: Jon D'Souza-Eva [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:08 PM To: Edward Labate Subject: Trice arrested! Hi Edward, I can't make head or tail of this one: http://tinyurl.com/4u4ne9 It's definitely "our" Ed Trice. If I read it correctly, he was arrested for harassment of some kind, appealed, and was found not guilty. Best wishes, Jon=94 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No you moron, all I did was copy and paste an email Jon DSouzaEva sent to me without commentary. Your inability to comprehend appears to be worse than your inability to play chess, Mr. 1352!! Regarding coming to your website to post, I=92ve already seen you embellish, edit and remove other posts=85remember Greg Strong!!! You=92d have me confessing to poisoning Bobby Fischer if I ever came near your post. I=92ll just wait for the depositions, discoveries and your witness stand performances. I=92m a patience man, especially when the payoff is your total demise!! You and I both know along with Frank Camaratta, Dan Heisman, Bruce Towell, Cathy Purdy and various others that you were the ASSHOLE behind the =91My 61 Memorable Games=92 Scam. Here you are, you know the whole truth and yet, you are astoundingly relentless on your bull shit!! You are the lowest of lows, the slimest life force I=92ve ever had the misfortune of dealing with. Don=92t you have a lawsuit to answer?? And Trice, I won=92t settle out of court. I want to bury you once and for all=85and a settlement will allow you to return one day. Edward Labate P.S. NICE PICTURE Mr. GQ =85 =91Can you say Discipline?=92 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:23 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Labate Lies, He Is "JonDSouzaEva" on ChessGames.com http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3D434 Sorry to email this again to the 112 people on my email distribution list about Ed Labate. But here he is online "forgetting" that he logged in as "Ed Labate", and he signed his name "Jon". OK Ed, let's hear your explanation. I'm sure someone who always tells the truth has a very good explanation   Date: 22 Jun 2008 22:55:59 From: Quadibloc Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile On Jun 21, 11:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > As for "benefits" -- no one is compelled > > to join. If they pay the dues, presumably they believe there is some > > benefit. If you don't, don't join. Please. We'll contain our sense of > > loss. > > I am not asking to join anything. I am writing about what CJA is, and what > worth it has. Pleaser keep your stupid and juvenile recommendations for > those impressed by that level of 'journalism'? Okay with Hillery? In another of your posts, you wrote: > Personally I simply want to establish if the private group was of any > worth - and what the 'private' group's influence in the public non-profit > USCF is. /That/ is everyone's business. People are certainly free to join a private chess club, even if it competes with the USCF... and they're also free to join a group of people who constantly make carping criticisms of the USCF (if CJA stands for Chess Journalists' Association, that might be germane). But that doesn't mean people don't have the right to question criticisms of the USCF emanating from the CJA or its membership, or that people don't have the right to debate whether the CJA is a constructive influence on Chess in the United States or not. Failure to anticipate, in time, that USCF membership and revenues were going to decline is, of course, an error that is hard to avoid. Reacting belatedly means that the organization may have to trim its sails to a greater extent. How to do it, without the cutbacks being the wrong ones, the ones most likely to make things much worse, needs to be considered carefully. Unfortunately, situations like this almost inevitably result in accusations of corruption or incompetence, leading to a climate unsuited to careful thought and sober consideration. Going web-based with Chess Life is a big cutback that is potentially very dangerous for the USCF if mishandled - and making Chess Life freely available to everyone on the web, or restricting it to members only, are *both* courses of action which have their dangers. The first removes a big incentive to join the USCF, the second would make Chess Life's content invisible to non-members once the print edition was dropped or became prohibitively expensive, as is a _very_ likely result if only a small fraction of members opt to retain print subscriptions. The *best of both worlds* result, of course, is that CL is members- only on the Web, and: - nearly all of the USCF's existing membership retains print subscriptions to CL, and - many new members flock to the USCF now that they have the opportunity to join at a lower level of dues. It has been claimed - and I think the claim is accurate - that more people join the USCF for the magazine than join it to have the opportunity to play in rated tournaments. It could be that some people whose interest and ability in Chess are such as to give them an interest in playing in rated tournaments are being kept away by the cost of a USCF membership, and it could be that a less expensive option to access the content of Chess Life would be attractive to some, so that doesn't make the "best of both worlds" outcome _impossible_. I think it does make it less likely, though. Psychologically, the choice between a print CL and cheaper web access is going to be a difficult one for people; it may be irrational, but many people are likely to view the choice as between one option of paying too much for the same thing, and another of paying a lesser amount, but not receiving real value for it. (The irrationality is, of course, in giving a higher negative value to the absence of paper than the positive value one gives to its presence, but people do that a lot without even realizing it.) And, of course, the issue of CL may not be the *only* difficult choice the USCF is facing, or will be facing in the near future. John Savard   Date: 22 Jun 2008 18:12:00 From: The Historian Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile On Jun 22, 7:34 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > Thanks once again to Honest John for building anticipation of what someone > will say, someone I do not personally edit, I'm sure that someone is very happy you don't "personally edit" their prose. That would be like having a dog 'personally edit' a fireplug.   Date: 22 Jun 2008 09:57:24 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Phil the Fool Raves Again On Jun 21, 4:57 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > >news:e5c6bb3c-019f-464d-bde3-54538ff3e257@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > >> You see? No comment on the issue, only the person reporting the issue. > > >> But > > >> we will certainly invite CJA to respond to /the issues/, and anyone there > > >> capable of doing that will be welcome. > > > > What issue ? > > > The ones about to be published. doh! The ones you write about below, since > > you reference a 'crazy rant'. > > > > So far you've offered only tabloid-style insinuations. > > > I said a CJA officer will write critically of some CJA practices, and CJA > > will have opportunity to reply. > > > What John Hillery here does is nothing but call people names - a mudslinger > > who /consistently/ addresses no issue, and as far as I can see, has only > > written negatively of other people's character. > > > This clown accuses others of 'tabloid-style insinuations'. > > > > You've implied that you have another crazy rant from Dillinger, > > > John Hillery continues to talk in derogatory terms of Mr. Dillinger, > > simultaneously denying any 'issues' exist to address, but swami-like knowing > > what is not yet published is 'another crazy rant'. > > > > insinuated that it raises "issues," refused to say what they are, and > > > demanded that someone respond to them. You're a real a piece of work, > > > Phil. Well, a piece of something, anyway. > > > I am announcing that the issues will be published - and of course then > > everyone will know what they are? What business is that of John Hillery? > > Really - what is this to him? He can barely write a sentence without > > trashing somebody, and has the gall to criticise their journalism. I am not > > 'demanding that someone' respond to issues. Where does Hillery get that > > from? > > > When the issues are raised then not someone, but CJA, can officially respond > > to their specifics. > > > >> Was last year the one with ballot problem? Or the fact that he was voted > > >> own > > >> a comment on the issues he raised? > > > > Was this supposed to be in English? Interpreting it as best I can: The > > > CJA members had ample iopportunity to hear both sides. They decided to > > > reject Dillinger's claims by about a wide margin. Case closed. > > > Not a direct answer to whether the issues were true. Sounds like decide to > > do nothing, rather than case closed. But hey... I guess we'll all see when > > CJA themselves respond to the issues if they did exist. Okay with you > > Hillery? > > > >> After [lol] receiving CJA's correspondence for almost a year, and not > > >> publishing anything about the internal scandal - I challenged both sides > > >> to > > >> ONLY copy me more if they could state what anything had to do with > > >> benefits > > >> to actual chess players? > > > > No one except Dillinger sent you any "CJA correspondence." > > > Untrue. > > > > To the rest > > > of us, you're an irrelevance. > > > Laugh - matters of fact are 'an irrelevance'? > > > > As for "benefits" -- no one is compelled > > > to join. If they pay the dues, presumably they believe there is some > > > benefit. If you don't, don't join. Please. We'll contain our sense of > > > loss. > > > I am not asking to join anything. I am writing about what CJA is, and what > > worth it has. Pleaser keep your stupid and juvenile recommendations for > > those impressed by that level of 'journalism'? Okay with Hillery? > > > Gawd- talk about not speaking straight! If Hillery's reporting on Dillinger > > is as his on mine - then Hillery doesn't even understand the issue of what > > is reported - nvermind being able to 'dismiss' it. > > > >> And there is gratuitous advice from a proxy-defender of CJA, who > > >> discusses > > >> not at all any issue, except to offer gratuitous and spurious advice to > > >> others, while offering the very generous smear to the reporting > > >> journalist > > >> that he is 'deranged' and 'disgraced' in the stead of addressing any > > >> issue > > >> whatever. > > > > Dillinger is not a reporting journalist. He is a disgruntled former > > > officer pursuing an assortment of personal vendettas. If you want to > > > take him seriously, fine. The rest of us will continue to regard him > > > as a joke. > > > I can already see who is disgruntled and who has personal vendettas!!! John > > Hillery has written nothing but personal abuse. > > > I have also seen Dillinger's report, which is not personality based, but > > issue based. > > > But I thank John Hillery for making what is no doubt an unintended > > demonstration of, let us say, another orientation of journalism to that of > > Dillinger. > > > Phil Innes > > > >> Now, there are some good people at CJA, especially its webmaster, and > > there > > >> are some villains too - the issues to be raised, I repeat, are ballot > > >> irregularity in elections, absent financials, and absent responses to > > >> requests for financials, apparent evasion of Californian laws in that > > >> respect, curious fees paid some officers, and what can only be described > > >> as > > >> an idiosyncratic awards system - and all reported by an insider. > > > > You've finally come up with something at least slightly specific, > > > though you're just parroting Dillinger (pun intentional), and have > > > made no attempt to verify his claims. (Nothing like journalistic > > > integrity. Certainly nothing like it in your work.) The simple answer > > > to your (and Dillinger's) attack is that all these charges were made > > > to the members, in excruciating detail, prior to the last election. > > > (Well, not the ballot nonsense. He invented that one later.) The > > > members, who _own_ the organization, rejected them all. Now, If you > > > and your new pet want to argue that the members are conspiring against > > > themselves, you go right ahead. Lunacy is always welcome at rgcp. > > > > And, returning to the original point, you have yet to answer the > > > questions: who is it that is > > > supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official > > > CJA line" you claim to have discovered? Spitting and hissing won't > > > work, Phil. Answer the questions. > > Oh yes, and I forgot to change the subject line to something more > accurate. We are still waiting for the Alekhine's Rot article P Innes has been spamming about. Nothing is up on the Chessvile site yet.   Date: 22 Jun 2008 04:24:38 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Phil the Fool Raves Again On Jun 21, 4:57 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Oh yes, and I forgot to change the subject line to something more > accurate. Speaking of what P Innes calls 'journalism', look at the howler that appears in last week's "Alekhine's Rot" column: "USCF announced last week that the flagship print chess magazine Chess Life will become an optional purchase with USCF membership." When did USCF make such an announcement? BTW, the Chessville website has been 'redesigned' to appear even uglier than before. Image matching content?   Date: 21 Jun 2008 15:28:44 From: The Historian Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile On Jun 21, 4:56 pm, [email protected] wrote: > For the record, all those claims you quoted from Dillinger are > completely false. What a surprise. Remember his review of Squares, John? You were ringside for that one.   Date: 21 Jun 2008 14:57:56 From: Subject: Phil the Fool Raves Again Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:e5c6bb3c-019f-464d-bde3-54538ff3e257@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > >> You see? No comment on the issue, only the person reporting the issue. > >> But > >> we will certainly invite CJA to respond to /the issues/, and anyone there > >> capable of doing that will be welcome. > > > > What issue ? > > The ones about to be published. doh! The ones you write about below, since > you reference a 'crazy rant'. > > > So far you've offered only tabloid-style insinuations. > > I said a CJA officer will write critically of some CJA practices, and CJA > will have opportunity to reply. > > What John Hillery here does is nothing but call people names - a mudslinger > who /consistently/ addresses no issue, and as far as I can see, has only > written negatively of other people's character. > > This clown accuses others of 'tabloid-style insinuations'. > > > You've implied that you have another crazy rant from Dillinger, > > John Hillery continues to talk in derogatory terms of Mr. Dillinger, > simultaneously denying any 'issues' exist to address, but swami-like knowing > what is not yet published is 'another crazy rant'. > > > insinuated that it raises "issues," refused to say what they are, and > > demanded that someone respond to them. You're a real a piece of work, > > Phil. Well, a piece of something, anyway. > > I am announcing that the issues will be published - and of course then > everyone will know what they are? What business is that of John Hillery? > Really - what is this to him? He can barely write a sentence without > trashing somebody, and has the gall to criticise their journalism. I am not > 'demanding that someone' respond to issues. Where does Hillery get that > from? > > When the issues are raised then not someone, but CJA, can officially respond > to their specifics. > > > > >> Was last year the one with ballot problem? Or the fact that he was voted > >> own > >> a comment on the issues he raised? > > > > Was this supposed to be in English? Interpreting it as best I can: The > > CJA members had ample iopportunity to hear both sides. They decided to > > reject Dillinger's claims by about a wide margin. Case closed. > > Not a direct answer to whether the issues were true. Sounds like decide to > do nothing, rather than case closed. But hey... I guess we'll all see when > CJA themselves respond to the issues if they did exist. Okay with you > Hillery? > > >> After [lol] receiving CJA's correspondence for almost a year, and not > >> publishing anything about the internal scandal - I challenged both sides > >> to > >> ONLY copy me more if they could state what anything had to do with > >> benefits > >> to actual chess players? > > > > No one except Dillinger sent you any "CJA correspondence." > > Untrue. > > > To the rest > > of us, you're an irrelevance. > > Laugh - matters of fact are 'an irrelevance'? > > > As for "benefits" -- no one is compelled > > to join. If they pay the dues, presumably they believe there is some > > benefit. If you don't, don't join. Please. We'll contain our sense of > > loss. > > I am not asking to join anything. I am writing about what CJA is, and what > worth it has. Pleaser keep your stupid and juvenile recommendations for > those impressed by that level of 'journalism'? Okay with Hillery? > > Gawd- talk about not speaking straight! If Hillery's reporting on Dillinger > is as his on mine - then Hillery doesn't even understand the issue of what > is reported - nvermind being able to 'dismiss' it. > > > >> And there is gratuitous advice from a proxy-defender of CJA, who > >> discusses > >> not at all any issue, except to offer gratuitous and spurious advice to > >> others, while offering the very generous smear to the reporting > >> journalist > >> that he is 'deranged' and 'disgraced' in the stead of addressing any > >> issue > >> whatever. > > > > Dillinger is not a reporting journalist. He is a disgruntled former > > officer pursuing an assortment of personal vendettas. If you want to > > take him seriously, fine. The rest of us will continue to regard him > > as a joke. > > I can already see who is disgruntled and who has personal vendettas!!! John > Hillery has written nothing but personal abuse. > > I have also seen Dillinger's report, which is not personality based, but > issue based. > > But I thank John Hillery for making what is no doubt an unintended > demonstration of, let us say, another orientation of journalism to that of > Dillinger. > > Phil Innes > > > >> Now, there are some good people at CJA, especially its webmaster, and > there > >> are some villains too - the issues to be raised, I repeat, are ballot > >> irregularity in elections, absent financials, and absent responses to > >> requests for financials, apparent evasion of Californian laws in that > >> respect, curious fees paid some officers, and what can only be described > >> as > >> an idiosyncratic awards system - and all reported by an insider. > > > > You've finally come up with something at least slightly specific, > > though you're just parroting Dillinger (pun intentional), and have > > made no attempt to verify his claims. (Nothing like journalistic > > integrity. Certainly nothing like it in your work.) The simple answer > > to your (and Dillinger's) attack is that all these charges were made > > to the members, in excruciating detail, prior to the last election. > > (Well, not the ballot nonsense. He invented that one later.) The > > members, who _own_ the organization, rejected them all. Now, If you > > and your new pet want to argue that the members are conspiring against > > themselves, you go right ahead. Lunacy is always welcome at rgcp. > > > > And, returning to the original point, you have yet to answer the > > questions: who is it that is > > supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official > > CJA line" you claim to have discovered? Spitting and hissing won't > > work, Phil. Answer the questions. Oh yes, and I forgot to change the subject line to something more accurate.   Date: 21 Jun 2008 14:56:12 From: Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:e5c6bb3c-019f-464d-bde3-54538ff3e257@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > >> You see? No comment on the issue, only the person reporting the issue. > >> But > >> we will certainly invite CJA to respond to /the issues/, and anyone there > >> capable of doing that will be welcome. > > > > What issue ? > > The ones about to be published. doh! The ones you write about below, since > you reference a 'crazy rant'. > > > So far you've offered only tabloid-style insinuations. > > I said a CJA officer will write critically of some CJA practices, and CJA > will have opportunity to reply. > > What John Hillery here does is nothing but call people names - a mudslinger > who /consistently/ addresses no issue, and as far as I can see, has only > written negatively of other people's character. > > This clown accuses others of 'tabloid-style insinuations'. > > > You've implied that you have another crazy rant from Dillinger, > > John Hillery continues to talk in derogatory terms of Mr. Dillinger, > simultaneously denying any 'issues' exist to address, but swami-like knowing > what is not yet published is 'another crazy rant'. > > > insinuated that it raises "issues," refused to say what they are, and > > demanded that someone respond to them. You're a real a piece of work, > > Phil. Well, a piece of something, anyway. > > I am announcing that the issues will be published - and of course then > everyone will know what they are? What business is that of John Hillery? > Really - what is this to him? He can barely write a sentence without > trashing somebody, and has the gall to criticise their journalism. I am not > 'demanding that someone' respond to issues. Where does Hillery get that > from? > > When the issues are raised then not someone, but CJA, can officially respond > to their specifics. > > > > >> Was last year the one with ballot problem? Or the fact that he was voted > >> own > >> a comment on the issues he raised? > > > > Was this supposed to be in English? Interpreting it as best I can: The > > CJA members had ample iopportunity to hear both sides. They decided to > > reject Dillinger's claims by about a wide margin. Case closed. > > Not a direct answer to whether the issues were true. Sounds like decide to > do nothing, rather than case closed. But hey... I guess we'll all see when > CJA themselves respond to the issues if they did exist. Okay with you > Hillery? > > >> After [lol] receiving CJA's correspondence for almost a year, and not > >> publishing anything about the internal scandal - I challenged both sides > >> to > >> ONLY copy me more if they could state what anything had to do with > >> benefits > >> to actual chess players? > > > > No one except Dillinger sent you any "CJA correspondence." > > Untrue. > > > To the rest > > of us, you're an irrelevance. > > Laugh - matters of fact are 'an irrelevance'? > > > As for "benefits" -- no one is compelled > > to join. If they pay the dues, presumably they believe there is some > > benefit. If you don't, don't join. Please. We'll contain our sense of > > loss. > > I am not asking to join anything. I am writing about what CJA is, and what > worth it has. Pleaser keep your stupid and juvenile recommendations for > those impressed by that level of 'journalism'? Okay with Hillery? > > Gawd- talk about not speaking straight! If Hillery's reporting on Dillinger > is as his on mine - then Hillery doesn't even understand the issue of what > is reported - nvermind being able to 'dismiss' it. > > > >> And there is gratuitous advice from a proxy-defender of CJA, who > >> discusses > >> not at all any issue, except to offer gratuitous and spurious advice to > >> others, while offering the very generous smear to the reporting > >> journalist > >> that he is 'deranged' and 'disgraced' in the stead of addressing any > >> issue > >> whatever. > > > > Dillinger is not a reporting journalist. He is a disgruntled former > > officer pursuing an assortment of personal vendettas. If you want to > > take him seriously, fine. The rest of us will continue to regard him > > as a joke. > > I can already see who is disgruntled and who has personal vendettas!!! John > Hillery has written nothing but personal abuse. > > I have also seen Dillinger's report, which is not personality based, but > issue based. > > But I thank John Hillery for making what is no doubt an unintended > demonstration of, let us say, another orientation of journalism to that of > Dillinger. > > Phil Innes > > > >> Now, there are some good people at CJA, especially its webmaster, and > there > >> are some villains too - the issues to be raised, I repeat, are ballot > >> irregularity in elections, absent financials, and absent responses to > >> requests for financials, apparent evasion of Californian laws in that > >> respect, curious fees paid some officers, and what can only be described > >> as > >> an idiosyncratic awards system - and all reported by an insider. > > > > You've finally come up with something at least slightly specific, > > though you're just parroting Dillinger (pun intentional), and have > > made no attempt to verify his claims. (Nothing like journalistic > > integrity. Certainly nothing like it in your work.) The simple answer > > to your (and Dillinger's) attack is that all these charges were made > > to the members, in excruciating detail, prior to the last election. > > (Well, not the ballot nonsense. He invented that one later.) The > > members, who _own_ the organization, rejected them all. Now, If you > > and your new pet want to argue that the members are conspiring against > > themselves, you go right ahead. Lunacy is always welcome at rgcp. > > > > And, returning to the original point, you have yet to answer the > > questions: who is it that is > > supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official > > CJA line" you claim to have discovered? Spitting and hissing won't > > work, Phil. Answer the questions. Phil, do have any notion of what an idiot you're making of yourself? Do you care? You claim that, at some future date, you will publish an article criticizing the CJA, you won't say what's in it since that's a secret, and you challenge people to answer the charges. If you were a serious journalist, this would be a joke. Since you're a joke of a journalist ... For the record, all those claims you quoted from Dillinger are completely false. They were thoroughly aired and debunked during the CJA election last year. You could easily have learned this if you had bothered to research the facts -- but who needs facts when you can make something up? > > And, returning to the original point, you have yet to answer the > > questions: who is it that is > > supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official > > CJA line" you claim to have discovered? Spitting and hissing won't > > work, Phil. Answer the questions. Well?     Date: 22 Jun 2008 20:34:54 From: Chess One Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile <[email protected] > wrote in message news:ce03d5ad-bd02-4f79-8044-b301841fdf6a@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... After accusing John Hillery of being on personal, not addressing any issues, but writing to suppress issues to do with CJA, he responds:- > Phil, do have any notion of what an idiot you're making of yourself? > Do you care? You claim that, at some future date, you will publish an > article criticizing the CJA, you won't say what's in it since that's a > secret, and you challenge people to answer the charges. If you were a > serious journalist, this would be a joke. Since you're a joke of a > journalist ... > For the record, all those claims you quoted from Dillinger are > completely false. I, btw, have quoted nothing from Dillinger. I have named his topics, to be published. John Hillery anticpates what he will say, and so writes a bit loosely in public, out of nerves? > They were thoroughly aired and debunked during the > CJA election last year. You could easily have learned this if you had > bothered to research the facts -- but who needs facts when you can > make something up? Indeed - what facts are presented here, when you can pre-empt issues without mentioning them, except that from some process they were 'debunked? Thanks once again to Honest John for building anticipation of what someone will say, someone I do not personally edit, but since I encourage conversations of what goes on, invite factual contributions thereto - doesn't matter to me who says what. Matters to me as a mere reader if what someone says is interesting on the basis of factual presentation. Phil Innes >> > And, returning to the original point, you have yet to answer the >> > questions: who is it that is >> > supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official >> > CJA line" you claim to have discovered? Spitting and hissing won't >> > work, Phil. Answer the questions. > > Well?   Date: 20 Jun 2008 18:49:30 From: Subject: Phil the Fool vs. reality [email protected] wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:4df3d2c9-1f59-4b9e-93e9-bafc33565366@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> But I already told him about a forthcoming expose of CJA by one of its > > >> own > > >> officers about the LA gang-of-3, taking in funny ballot practices, funny > > >> financials, and very funny awards systems, all happily condoned, ignored > > >> and > > >> celebrated by friends at USCF. > > >> > > >> Phil Innes > > > > > > Phil, how long is it going take to get it through your pointy little > > > head that Taylor Kingston and I are not the same person? We've never > > > even met. > > > > As long as you don't sign your posts, and ignore usenet posting protocol? > > Alternatively, until you stop sounding the same, and one of your actually > > addresses a topic? > > > > > As for the CJA, I assume you are referring to another deranged rant by > > > a disgraced former officer. > > > > You see? No comment on the issue, only the person reporting the issue. But > > we will certainly invite CJA to respond to /the issues/, and anyone there > > capable of doing that will be welcome. > > > > > He was voted out by the members last year. > > > You could have voted for him if you were a member. Which you're not. > > > > Was last year the one with ballot problem? Or the fact that he was voted own > > a comment on the issues he raised? > > > > After [lol] receiving CJA's correspondence for almost a year, and not > > publishing anything about the internal scandal - I challenged both sides to > > ONLY copy me more if they could state what anything had to do with benefits > > to actual chess players? > > > > This stumped everyone, pro and con - except for one soul who wrote in to say > > CJA has never influenced anything. > > > > > And you still haven't answered the questions: who is it that is > > > supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official > > > CJA line" you claim to have discovered? > > > > That is for the article - or rather articles, I believe 3 are scheduled, > > maybe 4. > > > > > Finally, a grammar lesson: Apparently they didn't teach subject/verb > > > agreement or subordinate clauses when you were being trained at the > > > pound. To what does "in its decline" refer? The USCF? The CJA? > > > > That itself would be dependent on the sentence which contained the words, > > plus no doubt surrounding clauses which would provide context. > > > > Certainly USCF is in decline, but has CJA ever achieved anything [other than > > its own applause] from which to shrink? > > > > > The > > > "minor frequently corrupt rewards"? > > > > You have stumbled over a need for a hypen, as in "frequently-corrupt", or > > you wish a comma between adjectives, as in "minor, frequent..."? > > > > > The clause apparently takes as a > > > subject "those others" (we can take "the advice of" as understood), > > > but ""Hillery's (advice)" and "the official CJA line" are not things > > > of the same kind and cannot be compounded (at least if you want to > > > make sense). > > > > Since you seem ready to refute what I say, while simultaneously ask what it > > is, as if indeed you did not know of the accusations at CJA raised by its > > own officer, then I think the best thing to do is to decide if you want to > > address the issues when published, or pretend they are incomprehensible to > > you, and their writer nutz! > > > > Of course, you already pre-empted the issue by declaring both already, as > > well as myself who raises the subject of their publication. But, Dear John, > > not being able to understand people is a too-common [in two senses of > > common] resort of scoundrels, no? > > > > > The problem, Phil, quite aside from your dubious ideas, > > > is that your a turgid and incompetent writer, and seem supinely > > > unaware of the fact. Try reading "The Elements of Style" a few dozen > > > times. > > > > And there is gratuitous advice from a proxy-defender of CJA, who discusses > > not at all any issue, except to offer gratuitous and spurious advice to > > others, while offering the very generous smear to the reporting journalist > > that he is 'deranged' and 'disgraced' in the stead of addressing any issue > > whatever. > > > > Now, there are some good people at CJA, especially its webmaster, and there > > are some villains too - the issues to be raised, I repeat, are ballot > > irregularity in elections, absent financials, and absent responses to > > requests for financials, apparent evasion of Californian laws in that > > respect, curious fees paid some officers, and what can only be described as > > an idiosyncratic awards system - and all reported by an insider. > > > > Phil Innes > > > > As long as you don't sign your posts, and ignore usenet posting protocol? > > Alternatively, until you stop sounding the same, and one of your actually > > addresses a topic? > > Sorry, those of us who use standard English and proper spelling and > grammar often sound alike. If you can't read headers, you're probably > too dumb to be allowed access to a computer. > > > > You see? No comment on the issue, only the person reporting the issue. But > > we will certainly invite CJA to respond to /the issues/, and anyone there > > capable of doing that will be welcome. > > What issue ? So far you've offered only tabloid-style insinuations. > You've implied that you have another crazy rant from Dillinger, > insinuated that it raises "issues," refused to say what they are, and > demanded that someone respond to them. You're a real a piece of work, > Phil. Well, a piece of something, anyway. > > > > Was last year the one with ballot problem? Or the fact that he was voted own > > a comment on the issues he raised? > > Was this supposed to be in English? Interpreting it as best I can: The > CJA members had ample iopportunity to hear both sides. They decided to > reject Dillinger's claims by about a wide margin. Case closed. > > > > After [lol] receiving CJA's correspondence for almost a year, and not > > publishing anything about the internal scandal - I challenged both sides to > > ONLY copy me more if they could state what anything had to do with benefits > > to actual chess players? > > No one except Dillinger sent you any "CJA correspondence." To the rest > of us, you're an irrelevance. As for "benefits" -- no one is compelled > to join. If they pay the dues, presumably they believe there is some > benefit. If you don't, don't join. Please. We'll contain our sense of > loss. > > > > And there is gratuitous advice from a proxy-defender of CJA, who discusses > > not at all any issue, except to offer gratuitous and spurious advice to > > others, while offering the very generous smear to the reporting journalist > > that he is 'deranged' and 'disgraced' in the stead of addressing any issue > > whatever. > > Dillinger is not a reporting journalist. He is a disgruntled former > officer pursuing an assortment of personal vendettas. If you want to > take him seriously, fine. The rest of us will continue to regard him > as a joke. > > > > Now, there are some good people at CJA, especially its webmaster, and there > > are some villains too - the issues to be raised, I repeat, are ballot > > irregularity in elections, absent financials, and absent responses to > > requests for financials, apparent evasion of Californian laws in that > > respect, curious fees paid some officers, and what can only be described as > > an idiosyncratic awards system - and all reported by an insider. > > You've finally come up with something at least slightly specific, > though you're just parroting Dillinger (pun intentional), and have > made no attempt to verify his claims. (Nothing like journalistic > integrity. Certainly nothing like it in your work.) The simple answer > to your (and Dillinger's) attack is that all these charges were made > to the members, in excruciating detail, prior to the last election. > (Well, not the ballot nonsense. He invented that one later.) The > members, who _own_ the organization, rejected them all. Now, If you > and your new pet want to argue that the members are conspiring against > themselves, you go right ahead. Lunacy is always welcome at rgcp. > > And, returning to the original point, you have yet to answer the > questions: who is it that is > supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official > CJA line" you claim to have discovered? Spitting and hissing won't > work, Phil. Answer the questions. BTW, if anyone is interested in researching the facts (an alien concept to Phil Innes, but there are some sensible people here), back issues of _The Chess Journalist_ are available in PDF format at http://www.chessjournalism.org/journal.htm.     Date: 21 Jun 2008 10:23:41 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Phil the Fool vs. reality <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >> You've finally come up with something at least slightly specific, >> though you're just parroting Dillinger (pun intentional), and have >> made no attempt to verify his claims. (Nothing like journalistic >> integrity. Certainly nothing like it in your work.) The simple answer >> to your (and Dillinger's) attack is that all these charges were made >> to the members, in excruciating detail, prior to the last election. >> (Well, not the ballot nonsense. He invented that one later.) The >> members, who _own_ the organization, rejected them all. Now, If you >> and your new pet want to argue that the members are conspiring against >> themselves, you go right ahead. Lunacy is always welcome at rgcp. The purported journalist but not a spokesperson for CJA, neverthless speaks for them - typically by trashing whoever questions their activities - and speaks for CJA in ADVANCE of actually reading the forthcoming articles. <grin > Somewhat desperate measures? In the above para John Hillery, who likes to mention names of others in a derogatory fashion, forgets to sign his own <sigh > while suggesting the issues were 'rejected', nevertheless does not actually contest if any of them are untrue, certainly not by citing any independent investigator's view. To confound the issue, John Hillery then says they were not rejected 'in the ballot sense'. :)) He then concludes that it is other people who lack sense, indeed they practice 'lunacy'. He further suggests that ballot issues are some sort of invention. A least the forthcoming articles will actually be about content, not personalities, or who raised issues - and if as John Hillery says, they are 'rejected' by members, then shall we assume that this rejection does not mean the circumstances do not exist or that they are untrue? At least, after publication, everyone can look at the issues for themselves, and CJA can reply to the //issues// if they wish - rather than who raises them, or in fact, suggesting that the membership 'rejected' the issues - whatever that term means in CJA-ese. >> And, returning to the original point, you have yet to answer the >> questions: who is it that is >> supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official >> CJA line" you claim to have discovered? The official CJA line seems to be to deploy non-spokespeople to deny what is not yet in the public view without allowing the chess public a chance to see for themselves. If John Hillery thinks that CJA and its relationship with USCF [including having a CJA officer currently on the USCF board] is above all suspicion, I think he rather misjudges the times! The board majority, I would say, are suffering a rather widespread lack of confidence, and seem to be making extreme decisions with very broad input. > Spitting and hissing won't >> work, Phil. Answer the questions. In advance of allowing the public to even read the articles, the author of 'Phil the Fool' suggests /I/ am 'spitting and hissing'. He already shot CJA colleague Dillinger [pun intended] in advance of his testimony. > > BTW, if anyone is interested in researching the facts (an alien > concept to Phil Innes, but there are some sensible people here), back > issues of _The Chess Journalist_ are available in PDF format at > http://www.chessjournalism.org/journal.htm. Yes, I am sure people will find that interesting, but probably more so AFTER that read the indictments. Then if anyone wants to speak openly about the issue, instead of Hillery's idea of being a non-official representative <grin >, then they are welcome to do so, and maybe make up their own minds? I rather wonder if that sort of journalism is a know-form at CJA? The fact that CJA is a 'private' group does not mean what is said about it is not true. And as to it being none of anyone else's business, then who said it was? Personally I simply want to establish if the private group was of any worth - and what the 'private' group's influence in the public non-profit USCF is. /That/ is everyone's business. Phil Innes   Date: 20 Jun 2008 15:17:22 From: Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:4df3d2c9-1f59-4b9e-93e9-bafc33565366@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > >> But I already told him about a forthcoming expose of CJA by one of its > >> own > >> officers about the LA gang-of-3, taking in funny ballot practices, funny > >> financials, and very funny awards systems, all happily condoned, ignored > >> and > >> celebrated by friends at USCF. > >> > >> Phil Innes > > > > Phil, how long is it going take to get it through your pointy little > > head that Taylor Kingston and I are not the same person? We've never > > even met. > > As long as you don't sign your posts, and ignore usenet posting protocol? > Alternatively, until you stop sounding the same, and one of your actually > addresses a topic? > > > As for the CJA, I assume you are referring to another deranged rant by > > a disgraced former officer. > > You see? No comment on the issue, only the person reporting the issue. But > we will certainly invite CJA to respond to /the issues/, and anyone there > capable of doing that will be welcome. > > > He was voted out by the members last year. > > You could have voted for him if you were a member. Which you're not. > > Was last year the one with ballot problem? Or the fact that he was voted own > a comment on the issues he raised? > > After [lol] receiving CJA's correspondence for almost a year, and not > publishing anything about the internal scandal - I challenged both sides to > ONLY copy me more if they could state what anything had to do with benefits > to actual chess players? > > This stumped everyone, pro and con - except for one soul who wrote in to say > CJA has never influenced anything. > > > And you still haven't answered the questions: who is it that is > > supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official > > CJA line" you claim to have discovered? > > That is for the article - or rather articles, I believe 3 are scheduled, > maybe 4. > > > Finally, a grammar lesson: Apparently they didn't teach subject/verb > > agreement or subordinate clauses when you were being trained at the > > pound. To what does "in its decline" refer? The USCF? The CJA? > > That itself would be dependent on the sentence which contained the words, > plus no doubt surrounding clauses which would provide context. > > Certainly USCF is in decline, but has CJA ever achieved anything [other than > its own applause] from which to shrink? > > > The > > "minor frequently corrupt rewards"? > > You have stumbled over a need for a hypen, as in "frequently-corrupt", or > you wish a comma between adjectives, as in "minor, frequent..."? > > > The clause apparently takes as a > > subject "those others" (we can take "the advice of" as understood), > > but ""Hillery's (advice)" and "the official CJA line" are not things > > of the same kind and cannot be compounded (at least if you want to > > make sense). > > Since you seem ready to refute what I say, while simultaneously ask what it > is, as if indeed you did not know of the accusations at CJA raised by its > own officer, then I think the best thing to do is to decide if you want to > address the issues when published, or pretend they are incomprehensible to > you, and their writer nutz! > > Of course, you already pre-empted the issue by declaring both already, as > well as myself who raises the subject of their publication. But, Dear John, > not being able to understand people is a too-common [in two senses of > common] resort of scoundrels, no? > > > The problem, Phil, quite aside from your dubious ideas, > > is that your a turgid and incompetent writer, and seem supinely > > unaware of the fact. Try reading "The Elements of Style" a few dozen > > times. > > And there is gratuitous advice from a proxy-defender of CJA, who discusses > not at all any issue, except to offer gratuitous and spurious advice to > others, while offering the very generous smear to the reporting journalist > that he is 'deranged' and 'disgraced' in the stead of addressing any issue > whatever. > > Now, there are some good people at CJA, especially its webmaster, and there > are some villains too - the issues to be raised, I repeat, are ballot > irregularity in elections, absent financials, and absent responses to > requests for financials, apparent evasion of Californian laws in that > respect, curious fees paid some officers, and what can only be described as > an idiosyncratic awards system - and all reported by an insider. > > Phil Innes > As long as you don't sign your posts, and ignore usenet posting protocol? > Alternatively, until you stop sounding the same, and one of your actually > addresses a topic? Sorry, those of us who use standard English and proper spelling and grammar often sound alike. If you can't read headers, you're probably too dumb to be allowed access to a computer. > You see? No comment on the issue, only the person reporting the issue. But > we will certainly invite CJA to respond to /the issues/, and anyone there > capable of doing that will be welcome. What issue ? So far you've offered only tabloid-style insinuations. You've implied that you have another crazy rant from Dillinger, insinuated that it raises "issues," refused to say what they are, and demanded that someone respond to them. You're a real a piece of work, Phil. Well, a piece of something, anyway. > Was last year the one with ballot problem? Or the fact that he was voted own > a comment on the issues he raised? Was this supposed to be in English? Interpreting it as best I can: The CJA members had ample iopportunity to hear both sides. They decided to reject Dillinger's claims by about a wide margin. Case closed. > After [lol] receiving CJA's correspondence for almost a year, and not > publishing anything about the internal scandal - I challenged both sides to > ONLY copy me more if they could state what anything had to do with benefits > to actual chess players? No one except Dillinger sent you any "CJA correspondence." To the rest of us, you're an irrelevance. As for "benefits" -- no one is compelled to join. If they pay the dues, presumably they believe there is some benefit. If you don't, don't join. Please. We'll contain our sense of loss. > And there is gratuitous advice from a proxy-defender of CJA, who discusses > not at all any issue, except to offer gratuitous and spurious advice to > others, while offering the very generous smear to the reporting journalist > that he is 'deranged' and 'disgraced' in the stead of addressing any issue > whatever. Dillinger is not a reporting journalist. He is a disgruntled former officer pursuing an assortment of personal vendettas. If you want to take him seriously, fine. The rest of us will continue to regard him as a joke. > Now, there are some good people at CJA, especially its webmaster, and there > are some villains too - the issues to be raised, I repeat, are ballot > irregularity in elections, absent financials, and absent responses to > requests for financials, apparent evasion of Californian laws in that > respect, curious fees paid some officers, and what can only be described as > an idiosyncratic awards system - and all reported by an insider. You've finally come up with something at least slightly specific, though you're just parroting Dillinger (pun intentional), and have made no attempt to verify his claims. (Nothing like journalistic integrity. Certainly nothing like it in your work.) The simple answer to your (and Dillinger's) attack is that all these charges were made to the members, in excruciating detail, prior to the last election. (Well, not the ballot nonsense. He invented that one later.) The members, who _own_ the organization, rejected them all. Now, If you and your new pet want to argue that the members are conspiring against themselves, you go right ahead. Lunacy is always welcome at rgcp. And, returning to the original point, you have yet to answer the questions: who is it that is supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official CJA line" you claim to have discovered? Spitting and hissing won't work, Phil. Answer the questions.     Date: 21 Jun 2008 13:17:25 From: Chess One Subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile <[email protected] > wrote in message news:e5c6bb3c-019f-464d-bde3-54538ff3e257@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> You see? No comment on the issue, only the person reporting the issue. >> But >> we will certainly invite CJA to respond to /the issues/, and anyone there >> capable of doing that will be welcome. > > What issue ? The ones about to be published. doh! The ones you write about below, since you reference a 'crazy rant'. > So far you've offered only tabloid-style insinuations. I said a CJA officer will write critically of some CJA practices, and CJA will have opportunity to reply. What John Hillery here does is nothing but call people names - a mudslinger who /consistently/ addresses no issue, and as far as I can see, has only written negatively of other people's character. This clown accuses others of 'tabloid-style insinuations'. > You've implied that you have another crazy rant from Dillinger, John Hillery continues to talk in derogatory terms of Mr. Dillinger, simultaneously denying any 'issues' exist to address, but swami-like knowing what is not yet published is 'another crazy rant'. > insinuated that it raises "issues," refused to say what they are, and > demanded that someone respond to them. You're a real a piece of work, > Phil. Well, a piece of something, anyway. I am announcing that the issues will be published - and of course then everyone will know what they are? What business is that of John Hillery? Really - what is this to him? He can barely write a sentence without trashing somebody, and has the gall to criticise their journalism. I am not 'demanding that someone' respond to issues. Where does Hillery get that from? When the issues are raised then not someone, but CJA, can officially respond to their specifics. > >> Was last year the one with ballot problem? Or the fact that he was voted >> own >> a comment on the issues he raised? > > Was this supposed to be in English? Interpreting it as best I can: The > CJA members had ample iopportunity to hear both sides. They decided to > reject Dillinger's claims by about a wide margin. Case closed. Not a direct answer to whether the issues were true. Sounds like decide to do nothing, rather than case closed. But hey... I guess we'll all see when CJA themselves respond to the issues if they did exist. Okay with you Hillery? >> After [lol] receiving CJA's correspondence for almost a year, and not >> publishing anything about the internal scandal - I challenged both sides >> to >> ONLY copy me more if they could state what anything had to do with >> benefits >> to actual chess players? > > No one except Dillinger sent you any "CJA correspondence." Untrue. > To the rest > of us, you're an irrelevance. Laugh - matters of fact are 'an irrelevance'? > As for "benefits" -- no one is compelled > to join. If they pay the dues, presumably they believe there is some > benefit. If you don't, don't join. Please. We'll contain our sense of > loss. I am not asking to join anything. I am writing about what CJA is, and what worth it has. Pleaser keep your stupid and juvenile recommendations for those impressed by that level of 'journalism'? Okay with Hillery? Gawd- talk about not speaking straight! If Hillery's reporting on Dillinger is as his on mine - then Hillery doesn't even understand the issue of what is reported - nvermind being able to 'dismiss' it. >> And there is gratuitous advice from a proxy-defender of CJA, who >> discusses >> not at all any issue, except to offer gratuitous and spurious advice to >> others, while offering the very generous smear to the reporting >> journalist >> that he is 'deranged' and 'disgraced' in the stead of addressing any >> issue >> whatever. > > Dillinger is not a reporting journalist. He is a disgruntled former > officer pursuing an assortment of personal vendettas. If you want to > take him seriously, fine. The rest of us will continue to regard him > as a joke. I can already see who is disgruntled and who has personal vendettas!!! John Hillery has written nothing but personal abuse. I have also seen Dillinger's report, which is not personality based, but issue based. But I thank John Hillery for making what is no doubt an unintended demonstration of, let us say, another orientation of journalism to that of Dillinger. Phil Innes >> Now, there are some good people at CJA, especially its webmaster, and there >> are some villains too - the issues to be raised, I repeat, are ballot >> irregularity in elections, absent financials, and absent responses to >> requests for financials, apparent evasion of Californian laws in that >> respect, curious fees paid some officers, and what can only be described >> as >> an idiosyncratic awards system - and all reported by an insider. > > You've finally come up with something at least slightly specific, > though you're just parroting Dillinger (pun intentional), and have > made no attempt to verify his claims. (Nothing like journalistic > integrity. Certainly nothing like it in your work.) The simple answer > to your (and Dillinger's) attack is that all these charges were made > to the members, in excruciating detail, prior to the last election. > (Well, not the ballot nonsense. He invented that one later.) The > members, who _own_ the organization, rejected them all. Now, If you > and your new pet want to argue that the members are conspiring against > themselves, you go right ahead. Lunacy is always welcome at rgcp. > > And, returning to the original point, you have yet to answer the > questions: who is it that is > supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official > CJA line" you claim to have discovered? Spitting and hissing won't > work, Phil. Answer the questions. > > > >   Date: 19 Jun 2008 14:47:40 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > > > Chess One wrote: > >> > >> > >> That is the like of those who uncritically have supported USCF, for their > >> minor frequently corrupt rewards in it, and whose advice has been as > >> disastrous as those others, like Hillery's and the official CJA line, in > >> its > >> decline. > > > >> Phil Innes > > > > > > The composer of this sentence is clearly challenged in the use of the > > English language. > > with which phrase is Vaguer Kingston having trouble? > > last i heard from him, he thought Mexican Spanish was the same as > Castillian, and that south American Spanish the same as in Mexico - in > passing, he even denied the Andean's even had a native tongue > > so, i wonder if he can say which phrase in the above para he can't > understand in English? though, naturally, since he doesn't understand the > pointlessness of making vague commentaries about other people's writing, he > will not suspect that the Sequoia might be in his own eye, and he cannot > parse 8th grade English. > > > Aside from that, I was not aware that anyone had been following my > > advice, nor have I heard of an "official CJA line." Care to enlighten > > us as to what that is, Philsy? > > in homo-bloke-talk? piss and tell? gawd! how Californian! > > Our Taylor who throws away chess newsletters now wants to know what's in > em... <snort> > > But I already told him about a forthcoming expose of CJA by one of its own > officers about the LA gang-of-3, taking in funny ballot practices, funny > financials, and very funny awards systems, all happily condoned, ignored and > celebrated by friends at USCF. > > Phil Innes Phil, how long is it going take to get it through your pointy little head that Taylor Kingston and I are not the same person? We've never even met. As for the CJA, I assume you are referring to another deranged rant by a disgraced former officer. He was voted out by the members last year. You could have voted for him if you were a member. Which you're not. And you still haven't answered the questions: who is it that is supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official CJA line" you claim to have discovered? Finally, a grammar lesson: Apparently they didn't teach subject/verb agreement or subordinate clauses when you were being trained at the pound. To what does "in its decline" refer? The USCF? The CJA? The "minor frequently corrupt rewards"? The clause apparently takes as a subject "those others" (we can take "the advice of" as understood), but ""Hillery's (advice)" and "the official CJA line" are not things of the same kind and cannot be compounded (at least if you want to make sense). The problem, Phil, quite aside from your dubious ideas, is that your a turgid and incompetent writer, and seem supinely unaware of the fact. Try reading "The Elements of Style" a few dozen times.     Date: 20 Jun 2008 09:13:10 From: Chess One Subject: CJA, decline and de Nile <[email protected] > wrote in message news:4df3d2c9-1f59-4b9e-93e9-bafc33565366@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... >> But I already told him about a forthcoming expose of CJA by one of its >> own >> officers about the LA gang-of-3, taking in funny ballot practices, funny >> financials, and very funny awards systems, all happily condoned, ignored >> and >> celebrated by friends at USCF. >> >> Phil Innes > > Phil, how long is it going take to get it through your pointy little > head that Taylor Kingston and I are not the same person? We've never > even met. As long as you don't sign your posts, and ignore usenet posting protocol? Alternatively, until you stop sounding the same, and one of your actually addresses a topic? > As for the CJA, I assume you are referring to another deranged rant by > a disgraced former officer. You see? No comment on the issue, only the person reporting the issue. But we will certainly invite CJA to respond to /the issues/, and anyone there capable of doing that will be welcome. > He was voted out by the members last year. > You could have voted for him if you were a member. Which you're not. Was last year the one with ballot problem? Or the fact that he was voted own a comment on the issues he raised? After [lol] receiving CJA's correspondence for almost a year, and not publishing anything about the internal scandal - I challenged both sides to ONLY copy me more if they could state what anything had to do with benefits to actual chess players? This stumped everyone, pro and con - except for one soul who wrote in to say CJA has never influenced anything. > And you still haven't answered the questions: who is it that is > supposed to be taking my advice, and what is the mysterious "official > CJA line" you claim to have discovered? That is for the article - or rather articles, I believe 3 are scheduled, maybe 4. > Finally, a grammar lesson: Apparently they didn't teach subject/verb > agreement or subordinate clauses when you were being trained at the > pound. To what does "in its decline" refer? The USCF? The CJA? That itself would be dependent on the sentence which contained the words, plus no doubt surrounding clauses which would provide context. Certainly USCF is in decline, but has CJA ever achieved anything [other than its own applause] from which to shrink? > The > "minor frequently corrupt rewards"? You have stumbled over a need for a hypen, as in "frequently-corrupt", or you wish a comma between adjectives, as in "minor, frequent..."? > The clause apparently takes as a > subject "those others" (we can take "the advice of" as understood), > but ""Hillery's (advice)" and "the official CJA line" are not things > of the same kind and cannot be compounded (at least if you want to > make sense). Since you seem ready to refute what I say, while simultaneously ask what it is, as if indeed you did not know of the accusations at CJA raised by its own officer, then I think the best thing to do is to decide if you want to address the issues when published, or pretend they are incomprehensible to you, and their writer nutz! Of course, you already pre-empted the issue by declaring both already, as well as myself who raises the subject of their publication. But, Dear John, not being able to understand people is a too-common [in two senses of common] resort of scoundrels, no? > The problem, Phil, quite aside from your dubious ideas, > is that your a turgid and incompetent writer, and seem supinely > unaware of the fact. Try reading "The Elements of Style" a few dozen > times. And there is gratuitous advice from a proxy-defender of CJA, who discusses not at all any issue, except to offer gratuitous and spurious advice to others, while offering the very generous smear to the reporting journalist that he is 'deranged' and 'disgraced' in the stead of addressing any issue whatever. Now, there are some good people at CJA, especially its webmaster, and there are some villains too - the issues to be raised, I repeat, are ballot irregularity in elections, absent financials, and absent responses to requests for financials, apparent evasion of Californian laws in that respect, curious fees paid some officers, and what can only be described as an idiosyncratic awards system - and all reported by an insider. Phil Innes     Date: 19 Jun 2008 15:00:59 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:47:40 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote: >Phil, how long is it going take to get it through your pointy little >head that Taylor Kingston and I are not the same person? We've never >even met. Phil doesn't care about sigs and headers -- he uses stylistic identification. All that correct grammar, conventional formatting and proper spelling give it away. You must be Taylor Kingston. You've been unmasked. Denial is useless. Resistance is futile. ... >The problem, Phil, quite aside from your dubious ideas, >is that your a turgid and incompetent writer, and seem supinely >unaware of the fact. Try reading "The Elements of Style" a few dozen >times. Prioritize. First, a spell-checker.   Date: 19 Jun 2008 12:02:57 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Ed Trice's 3M enemies expose him once again. For our new viewers, Ed Trice's 3M enemies are his Mouth, his Memory & his Morals, or lack of them: Ed Trice's MOUTH never stops spewing BS; Ed Trice's MEMORY is so poor, he forgets what he's already spewed; Ed Trice's MORALS are the lowest/non-existent I've ever seen with anyone I've had any dealings with...which is very impressive considering the following 'snakes' I've already had to deal with in the last 25 years: Dullea, Falkenstein, Licht, Luna, 'Oily Doily' Doyle; From: Edward Labate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:09 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: I can't keep track.... " I'm a U.S. citizen..." and "I am still, in every respect, an English citizen ." Another donation from the Ed Trice CRANIUM! ENJOY!! =93This is not a threat. This is an advance warning that your prior posts on this matter ARE INCORRECT, and subsequent reverts will be dealt with appropriately. I'm a U.S. citizen with legal rights to protect my intellectual property. GothicChessInventor 03:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)" NOTE THE DATE: Oct. 27, 2007, Trice is claiming he's a US citizen!! Yet, in an email to warn somewhere 'not to bother' suing him; =93I rescinded my US Citizenship in July of 2006=85=94 and =93I am still, in every respect, an English citizen with a British Passport currently on American soil.=94 From: Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:22 PM To: Edward Labate Subject: RE: 27 October 2007 " I'm a U.S. citizen with legal rights to protect my intellectual property." So he has either lied about being an "English citizen" or he is lying about being a US citizen. Which is it I wonder? Is their a way to contact the US patent office directly to see if the patent is expired? If it's public domain then it could be marketed as anything. SO long as the "Gothic Chess" trademark isn't infringed upon. WHo would want to call it that anyway? There is such a negative connocation associated with "Gothic" that it's dead before it starts. According to Trice, Donald Trump wanted to "buy" the patent from him and he (Trice) refused a seven figure sum for it. Well "The Donald" can now use the game and call it " Trump Chess" without having to pay Trice one red cent if the the information about the patent lapsing is true. To: [email protected] Subject: 27 October 2007 " I'm a U.S. citizen with legal rights to protect my intellectual property." Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:13:31 -0500 From: Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:50 PM To: Edward Labate Subject: Re: any other contributors to this info It's interesting to look at Trice's BS when confronted about losing the Gothic Chess patent. Here, as "Chess historian": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gothic_chess/Archive_4#Patent_situa... And a typical Trice lawsuit threat: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DTalk:Ed_Trice&oldid=3D1675563..= . Patent.2C_Last_Warning_About_Incorrect_Citation The Patent, Last Warning About Incorrect Citation: For those who don't know, the maintenance fee is only $75. Of course it was paid. It was paid by my attorney while I was in Iceland trying to get Bobby Fischer to play Karpov in the $15,000,000 Gothic Chess match. I've explained this now to at least 5 people who called on the telephone. Apparently the USPTO isn't very sophisticated. If they dont't have a check signed by Edward Trice, they have no way to know which patent to apply it to. They have too much info to check "by hand" and their OCR package has no way to figure out which attorney is assigned to which patent. It's a big mess and the USPTO screws up over 10,000 of these things every year. Since this is a legal matter, I suggest you all "lay off" this. While Wikipedia has the "no legal threats" item, that doesn't mean I can't go after anybody who wilfully diseminates INCORRECT information after I explicitly tell you: I'VE GOT THE PATENT FEES PAID and I don't care who you cite online. Consider this ground zero: no harm, no foul, you didn't know before I made this post. Change it again, and you will be personally liable for what happens next. There is no judge on the planet who will rule against me because of a Wikiepdia policy. This is not a threat. This is an advance warning that your prior posts on this matter ARE INCORRECT, and subsequent reverts will be dealt with appropriately. I'm a U.S. citizen with legal rights to protect my intellectual property. GothicChessInventor 03:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC) =46rom an ETFC member: From: Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:45 PM To: Edward Labate Subject: The game was invented by D. Pietro Carrera 400 years ago. FYI - I looked into this when I heard the patent had expired. From what I read, no one else can claim an expired patent - it is now public domain. The only window for the patent to be reinstated is for Trice to convince the US Patent Office that he was unable to pay the maintenance fees on time because of extreme circumstances (like being in a hospital in a coma.) And, even if the patent was reinstated in that case, it still would not prevent anyone from profiting who had made an investment in that area during the time that the patent was expired. And, if Trice can't convince them to renew it because of extreme circumstances, Gothic Chess is forever public domain. No one else can "buy" it. (Although, the fact that the game being public domain doesn't mean that there isn't some chance that the name is copyrighted - that's another issue.) But none of this matters. The game was invented by D. Pietro Carrera 400 years ago. The patent covers something that was clearly prior art and wasn't worth shit to begin with. Although I haven't looked deeply into this "latepatents" web site, I did look into what happens when a patent expires months ago when I found out that Trice's patent expired, and from what I read, you can't just buy them. I assume that "latepatents" is just another off-shore rip-off hoping to take money from people who don't know any better. I would ask an intellectual property attorney at work, but it's not even worth it. The patent was never enforcable to begin with, and I believe it is now forever expired, so it is doubly worthless. P.S. Feel free to forward this message to the club. Greg   Date: 19 Jun 2008 07:30:50 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 19, 7:28=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > > > > > > Chess One wrote: > > >> That is the like of those who uncritically have supported USCF, for th= eir > >> minor frequently corrupt rewards in it, and whose advice has been as > >> disastrous as those others, like Hillery's and the official CJA line, = in > >> its > >> decline. > > >> Phil Innes > > > The composer of this sentence is clearly challenged in the use of the > > English language. > > with which phrase is Vaguer Kingston having trouble? > > last i heard from him, he thought Mexican Spanish was the same as > Castillian, and that south American Spanish the same as in Mexico - in > passing, he even denied the Andean's even had a native tongue > > so, i wonder if he can say which phrase in the above para he can't > understand in English? though, naturally, since he doesn't understand the > pointlessness of making vague commentaries about other people's writing, = he > will not suspect that the Sequoia might be in his own eye, and he cannot > parse 8th grade English. > > > Aside from that, I was not aware that anyone had been following my > > advice, nor have I heard of an "official CJA line." Care to enlighten > > us as to what that is, Philsy? > > in homo-bloke-talk? piss and tell? gawd! how Californian! > > Our Taylor who throws away chess newsletters now wants to know what's in > em... <snort> > > But I already told him about a forthcoming expose of CJA by one of its ow= n > officers about the LA gang-of-3, taking in funny ballot practices, funny > financials, and very funny awards systems, all happily condoned, ignored = and > celebrated by friends at USCF. > > btw: nothing about the 2 Eds, which is the nominal topic here. S'far as I > can see, a certain pattern has emerged on that subject, and while not > contributing much in public to that subject myself, except to exculpate R= ob > Mitchell's involvement as proposed by the Sloan, I do want to make one > observation: > > I have strong up-front doubts about chess variants. I am never convinced > that those who propose them have exactly exhausted the possibilities of > classical chess, and rather wonder why they propose deviant forms of it. = The > only straightforward response I have read is that the novelty is intended= to > obviate opening book knowledge. Whether Ed Trice or Bobby Fischer propose= s > the deviant version, I maintain my suspicions about their motives. > > The implacable fact of the matter in my experience is that almost all che= ss > players do not even know the first 12 moves of even common openings > sufficient to identify departure from them. A secondary fact is that whil= e > strong players know openings to often extraordinary depth, even innovatin= g > in them, the more pertinent fact is that they are playing out positions t= o a > pattern rather than to a planned sequences - a similar distinction to tha= t > of pattern recognition to rote move-orders. > > The shame of this is for classical chess, that active game-players become > distracted by these novelties and deviations while still in Pilgrim-mode = of > the game; leaving chess before arriving at the Site of their own Reward f= or > all that travel/travail in learning it - and then spend their active play= ing > years in some back-water place, even losing the ability to discuss playin= g > because their own variant form is typically no happy fit with the classic= al > one, even in terms of discussing it. > > Variant forms of chess would seem to appeal to those who like tactics onl= y, > or the sort of strategy that you discover on the fly while playing. This > /divertisement/ removes a certain depth from the game which otherwise exi= sts > in classical forms - and remains as every player's promise of what they c= an > attempt, and also appreciate when they see virtuoso's of the game perform= . > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Riddle: How do you know Phil has posted on a topic? Answer: There are dozens of posts by Brennen.   Date: 19 Jun 2008 07:21:40 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 19, 7:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > But I already told him about a forthcoming expose of CJA by one of its own > officers about the LA gang-of-3, taking in funny ballot practices, funny > financials, and very funny awards systems, all happily condoned, ignored and > celebrated by friends at USCF. Ah, another whining screed from, well, you know, one of the few folks in chess as nutty as you. > > The implacable fact of the matter in my experience is that almost all chess > players do not even know the first 12 moves of even common openings > sufficient to identify departure from them. Since you were a USCF rated Expert, and are probably about B player strength now, that presumably grants you understanding to speak for "almost all chess players?"     Date: 19 Jun 2008 16:46:22 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Jun 19, 7:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But I already told him about a forthcoming expose of CJA by one of its >> own >> officers about the LA gang-of-3, taking in funny ballot practices, funny >> financials, and very funny awards systems, all happily condoned, ignored >> and >> celebrated by friends at USCF. > > Ah, another whining screed from, well, you know, one of the few folks > in chess as nutty as you. Brennen, you numbskull, why do you write anything here at all? Surely there is a newsgroup for people who only hate others and abuse them, lying and demeaning them? Isn't that you to a 't'? Anyone capable of your level of insensibility to almost any subject whatever, is almost beyond belief. As a numbskull, you are already famous for your understanding of things! You can even trivialise gross corruption, as above, and call it 'whining'. No wonder CL wants you! What a sad suck-up that rag is. I can't believe that anyone can be //really//concerned about the FSS when you still post hate-speech openly. No matter what the topic, that's what you get. PI >> >> The implacable fact of the matter in my experience is that almost all >> chess >> players do not even know the first 12 moves of even common openings >> sufficient to identify departure from them. > > Since you were a USCF rated Expert, and are probably about B player > strength now, that presumably grants you understanding to speak for > "almost all chess players?"   Date: 18 Jun 2008 17:51:46 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Chess One wrote: > > > That is the like of those who uncritically have supported USCF, for their > minor frequently corrupt rewards in it, and whose advice has been as > disastrous as those others, like Hillery's and the official CJA line, in its > decline. > Phil Innes The composer of this sentence is clearly challenged in the use of the English language. Aside from that, I was not aware that anyone had been following my advice, nor have I heard of an "official CJA line." Care to enlighten us as to what that is, Philsy?     Date: 19 Jun 2008 08:28:37 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > Chess One wrote: >> >> >> That is the like of those who uncritically have supported USCF, for their >> minor frequently corrupt rewards in it, and whose advice has been as >> disastrous as those others, like Hillery's and the official CJA line, in >> its >> decline. > >> Phil Innes > > > The composer of this sentence is clearly challenged in the use of the > English language. with which phrase is Vaguer Kingston having trouble? last i heard from him, he thought Mexican Spanish was the same as Castillian, and that south American Spanish the same as in Mexico - in passing, he even denied the Andean's even had a native tongue so, i wonder if he can say which phrase in the above para he can't understand in English? though, naturally, since he doesn't understand the pointlessness of making vague commentaries about other people's writing, he will not suspect that the Sequoia might be in his own eye, and he cannot parse 8th grade English. > Aside from that, I was not aware that anyone had been following my > advice, nor have I heard of an "official CJA line." Care to enlighten > us as to what that is, Philsy? in homo-bloke-talk? piss and tell? gawd! how Californian! Our Taylor who throws away chess newsletters now wants to know what's in em... <snort > But I already told him about a forthcoming expose of CJA by one of its own officers about the LA gang-of-3, taking in funny ballot practices, funny financials, and very funny awards systems, all happily condoned, ignored and celebrated by friends at USCF. btw: nothing about the 2 Eds, which is the nominal topic here. S'far as I can see, a certain pattern has emerged on that subject, and while not contributing much in public to that subject myself, except to exculpate Rob Mitchell's involvement as proposed by the Sloan, I do want to make one observation: I have strong up-front doubts about chess variants. I am never convinced that those who propose them have exactly exhausted the possibilities of classical chess, and rather wonder why they propose deviant forms of it. The only straightforward response I have read is that the novelty is intended to obviate opening book knowledge. Whether Ed Trice or Bobby Fischer proposes the deviant version, I maintain my suspicions about their motives. The implacable fact of the matter in my experience is that almost all chess players do not even know the first 12 moves of even common openings sufficient to identify departure from them. A secondary fact is that while strong players know openings to often extraordinary depth, even innovating in them, the more pertinent fact is that they are playing out positions to a pattern rather than to a planned sequences - a similar distinction to that of pattern recognition to rote move-orders. The shame of this is for classical chess, that active game-players become distracted by these novelties and deviations while still in Pilgrim-mode of the game; leaving chess before arriving at the Site of their own Reward for all that travel/travail in learning it - and then spend their active playing years in some back-water place, even losing the ability to discuss playing because their own variant form is typically no happy fit with the classical one, even in terms of discussing it. Variant forms of chess would seem to appeal to those who like tactics only, or the sort of strategy that you discover on the fly while playing. This /divertisement/ removes a certain depth from the game which otherwise exists in classical forms - and remains as every player's promise of what they can attempt, and also appreciate when they see virtuoso's of the game perform. Phil Innes   Date: 18 Jun 2008 11:10:48 From: SBD Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 18, 8:47 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > Also, don't you find it amusing that Sam Sloan is questioning the > truthfulness of a statement? Isn't that like P Innes accusing someone > of arguing ad hom? It would be amusing if both of them didn't regularly engage in truth- challenged, ad hom posts.     Date: 18 Jun 2008 14:41:33 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Jun 18, 8:47 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Also, don't you find it amusing that Sam Sloan is questioning the >> truthfulness of a statement? Isn't that like P Innes accusing someone >> of arguing ad hom? > > It would be amusing if both of them didn't regularly engage in truth- > challenged, ad hom posts. Steven Dowd continues to be amused by those who are not amused by other than cynical nihilism, or are normally noticed elsewhere for their contributions, such as his own contributions to chess, whatever the topic. Here he corresponds seriously with a serial abuser and stalker, as if he didn't know that, as if he was careless of libel, not in just a legal sense, but that was his habit - to in public fuck over people who genuinely want to promote the game, and do not like this 'who says' rather than 'what is said' commentary. That is the like of those who uncritically have supported USCF, for their minor frequently corrupt rewards in it, and whose advice has been as disastrous as those others, like Hillery's and the official CJA line, in its decline. I apologize if I mixed up anyone's cynicism with anyone else's, since certain people who don't even sign their posts are indistinguishable from others of the same stripe. Phil Innes   Date: 18 Jun 2008 06:47:05 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 18, 8:13 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jun 18, 5:46 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Have you looked at the Wikipedia biography of Ed Trice? > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Trice > > > It is filled with claims that are almost certainly not true and almost > > all of it was probably written by fake personalities created by Ed > > Trice. > > > Sam Sloan > > I don't know, Sam, it doesn't look that inaccurate. Not that that > should be seen as support for Trice.... Also, don't you find it amusing that Sam Sloan is questioning the truthfulness of a statement? Isn't that like P Innes accusing someone of arguing ad hom?   Date: 18 Jun 2008 06:13:58 From: SBD Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 18, 5:46 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > Have you looked at the Wikipedia biography of Ed Trice? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Trice > > It is filled with claims that are almost certainly not true and almost > all of it was probably written by fake personalities created by Ed > Trice. > > Sam Sloan I don't know, Sam, it doesn't look that inaccurate. Not that that should be seen as support for Trice....     Date: 19 Jun 2008 19:32:53 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 19, 5:00 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:47:40 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote: > >Phil, how long is it going take to get it through your pointy little > >head that Taylor Kingston and I are not the same person? We've never > >even met. > > Phil doesn't care about sigs and headers -- he uses stylistic > identification. All that correct grammar, conventional formatting and > proper spelling give it away. You must be Taylor Kingston. You've > been unmasked. Denial is useless. Resistance is futile. > ... > > >The problem, Phil, quite aside from your dubious ideas, > >is that your a turgid and incompetent writer, and seem supinely > >unaware of the fact. Try reading "The Elements of Style" a few dozen > >times. > > Prioritize. First, a spell-checker. No, first a good anti-psychotic.   Date: 18 Jun 2008 06:10:44 From: SBD Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice 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.   Date: 18 Jun 2008 03:46:11 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Have you looked at the Wikipedia biography of Ed Trice? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Trice It is filled with claims that are almost certainly not true and almost all of it was probably written by fake personalities created by Ed Trice. Sam Sloan   Date: 17 Jun 2008 20:11:58 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice HOPING FOR A FAIR RESOLUTION I have always been a friend of Ed Labate, and I don't know Ed Trice, who may be an okay guy who got in over his head with the purported Fischer volume or a louse who either acted malevolently or thought he would make some easy money. If he is a sociopath -- and I do NOT make this charge -- then he would be incapable of conscience qualms. Having followed the evidence as best I could and GM Larry Evans' exposure of the hoax, my sense of affairs is that Ed Labate's demand for a full retraction is a generous offer indeed. Now, it may be that Mr. Trice is judgment proof, lacking assets, and can't have his shirt, pants and underwear stripped from him. Mr. Trice knows the facts about his financial position. If he actually possesses seisin and funds, he would be crazy at this point -- based on my reading of the evidence -- not to make the amende honorable unequivocally. And then, one hopes, learn a big lesson, both in terms of street smarts and moral instruction, from this encounter with Mr. Labate. I would remind Mr. Trice that even if he can avoid making payments to Mr. Labate from a judgment, it is a fact that an outstanding court judgment will be an impediment to whatever career hopes he may have for the rest of his life -- if Ed Labate decides to pursue the matter implacably. One hopes that this legal battle can be settled fairly, if not amicably. Yours, Larry Parr Edward Labate wrote: > On May 8th, I, Edward Labate, through my attorney Alfred T. Newell, > mailed Ed Trice/Gothic Chess the following 'Demand For Retraction', > > > ALFRED T. NEWELL, IV > ATTORNEY AT LAW > P. O. Box 101432 > BIRMINGHAM, AL 35210-6432 > PHONE (205) 956-8281 > FAX (205) 951-2855 > > NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR RETRACTION > > TO: ED TRICE > GOTHIC CHESS ASSOCIATION > 1735 MARKET STREET SUITE A-456 > PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 > > DEAR ED TRICE: > > PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENTS EDWARD LABATE. > > ON THE 1st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 THROUGH THE 7TH DAY OF > MAY, 2008 YOU PUBLISHED FALSE AND DEFAMATORY REMARKS BY PUBLISHING > ARTICLES, LETTERS, EMAILS, OR MATTER, COPIES OF WHICH ARE ATTACHED > HERETO REGARDING EDWARD LABATE; > > 1] IN THAT YOU SAID ?Ed Labate = "Helgi" from "My 61 Memorable Games?, > NOW ESTABLISHED AS A BOOK PUBLISHING HOAX; > > 2] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF SELLING A FRAUDULENT BOBBY FISCHER > AUTOGRAPHED BOOK, MY 60 MEMORABLE GAMES; > > 3] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF BEING THE PERPATRATOR OF THE ?My 61 > Memorable Games? HOAX TO THE POINT OF ACTUALLY PRINTING A VERY LARGE > QUANTITY OF SAID BOOKS AND THEN SHIPPING THEM TO EUROPE; > > 4] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF POSTING FRAUDLENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH > YOU ON HIS WEBSITE; > > 5] ALSO STATED YOU ARE IN POSSESSION OF "...an AOL representative's > letter stating they were spoofed, fabricated entirely by Labate." > > 6] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF FABRICATING AND 'DOCTORING' > CORRESPONDENCE FROM OTHER CONTACTS; > > 7] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF FABRICATING EMAILS WITH CATHY PURDY > OF BOOKMASTERS, YOUR CONTACT PERSON WHEN YOU YOURSELF INQUIRED ABOUT > PRINTING ?My 61 Memorable Games? IN THE SUMMER OF 2007. > > 8] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF FABRICATING YOUR ATTEMPTS TO PROCURE > INVESTORS FOR YOUR UNATHORIZED PRINTING OF ?My 61 Memorable Games?, > INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FRANK CAMARATTA, BRUCE TOWELL, ETC. > > 9] ALSO STATED YOU SUCCESSFULLY HAD THE LIMESTONE COUNTY SHERIFF VISIT > EDWARD LABATE ON OR ABOUT JAN. 17, 2008, AT HIS 'RESIDENCE' WHEREIN HE > HAD NOT RESIDED SINCE JUNE 2007; > > 10] ALSO YOU POSTED ON CHESSGAMES.COM; > "Labate, you're the liar who fabricated EVERYTHING on that > page. And since you don't know what "per se defamation" is, you've > been invited to Philadelphia to learn all about it. > You claim the sheriff never visited your house, yet why then, > did you remove the slander from your eBay auction one day later? I > called and spoke with "Pat" (who answers their phone) many times. I > called the local police on you because HARASSMENT is the first item > that needs filing before civil proceedings commence. And the local > police told me it was a Limestone County issue, since the mudhole you > live in does not dispatch officers to your location. That's already on > the ledger, first thing's first. > I've already have had an arbitration board convene to assess > damages at $1000 per day for each day you have that b.s. on your page. > I've asked you to remove it, you've refused (God knows what you have > to gain by it) so now each day from the first day of contact will be > money in my pocket. I've already negotiated 50 cents on the dollar to > a firm that buys civil judgments. Let's see where you'll move to next, > since you have gone bankrupt in California." > > SAID REMARKS, ARTICLES, LETTERS OR EMAILS WERE PUBLISHED TO THE > GENERAL PUBLIC AND STILL REMAIN POSTED TO THIS DAY UNDER your name of > Ed Trice, as well as your numerous aliases, including but not limited > to, 'James', 'Mark', 'Paul Mugno', 'Blood of Bulls', 'ChessV'; 'Alan > McCormick', 'GothicChessInventor'; 'AverageWoodpusher'; > > to numerous websites but not limited to; chessgames.com; > chessninja.com; NY Times Daily Blog; ChessVibes.com; uschess.org; > redhotpawn.com, polgarchess.com; GothicChess.com; etc.; > > to NUMEROUS CONTACTS BUT NOT LIMITED TO, FRANK CAMARATTA, House of > Staunton; DAN HEISMAN, Chess Master, Teacher, and Chess Columnist; > CATHY PURDY, Printer/Bookmasters; Ed Hall, US Chess Executive > Director, etc. > > PURSUANT TO CODE OF ALABAMA, 1975, 6-5-186, I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU > PUBLISH A FULL AND FAIR RETRACTION OF SUCH ACCUSATIONS IN AN EQUALLY > PUBLIC AND PROMINENT PLACE AND MANNER WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS OF YOUR > RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER. > > DATED THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2008. > > SINCERELY YOURS, > > _______________________________________ > > ALFRED T. NEWELL, IV > ATTORNEY AT LAW > > which was received and signed for on May 12, 2008. Instead of Ed > Trice retracting all his lies, he continues to provide more counts for > my lawsuit. > > > Therefore, we have no choice and are proceeding with a Multi-Million > Lawsuit against Ed Trice for libel/defamation. As anyone who has been > involved in a lawsuit know, the first thing each side files are > discoveries and requests for depositions. This is where the 'fun' now > starts. Everything you say in these are considered 'under oath' and > false statement are criminal acts, punishable by fines and jail time. > For example Ed Trice claims that I had 'My 61 Memorable Games' > printed. Our very first question will be for Ed Trice to provide > proof of this statement. Now let's see whose story changes, and whose > story remains the same!! > > Additionally, anyone receiving this notice and publishes Ed Trice's > lies, will also be held accountable. I am sick and tired of these > last six months having to deal with this scumbag Trice, who can't seem > to read a damn thing presented to him. I have never, ever dealt with > such a low life in my 53 years. And yes, some of you will be getting > letters as to your communication with Ed Trice. I'm sorry, but I > didn't bring this on, Ed Trice did. > > I will admit it, I have only one goal: > > To destroy Ed Trice for lying about me, and for taking advantage of a > dying Bobby Fischer!! Bobby Fischer is on his deathbed, and Ed Trice > is claiming he's got Fischer's permission to reprint My 61 Memorable > Games. FOLKS: Is there a lower LOWLIFE in the chess community than > Ed Trice??? > > Edward Labate > > May 23, 2008   Date: 17 Jun 2008 19:37:32 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 17, 9:27 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jun 17, 4:13 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > On Jun 17, 9:35 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 > > > The problem is Trice doesn't own the patent any more, he lost it by > > not paying the maintenance fees which were due three years after he > > was first awarded the patent:http://www.latepatents.net/6481716.htm > > > I believe Trice is stony broke. If he had any money he wouldn't be > > trying to rip off a complete stranger for $6000. The risk involved was > > enormous and he could still end up going to prison for it (fingers > > crossed). > > > Jon D'Souza-Eva > > Readhttp://www.labatechess.com/61_games.htmlforthe full sordid > > story of "My 61 Memorable Games" > > Can the patent be claimed by someone else if the fees are paid? If the patent truely has expired... the it's open for exploitation: http://www.inc.com/articles/2000/03/18174.html Patent expired. After the patent expires, the patent owner has no further rights, although infringement suits can still be brought for any infringement that occurred during the patent's in-force period as long as the suit is filed within the time required by law. An expired patent remains a valid "prior-art reference" forever.   Date: 17 Jun 2008 19:27:53 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 17, 4:13 pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jun 17, 9:35 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 > > The problem is Trice doesn't own the patent any more, he lost it by > not paying the maintenance fees which were due three years after he > was first awarded the patent:http://www.latepatents.net/6481716.htm > > I believe Trice is stony broke. If he had any money he wouldn't be > trying to rip off a complete stranger for $6000. The risk involved was > enormous and he could still end up going to prison for it (fingers > crossed). > > Jon D'Souza-Eva > Readhttp://www.labatechess.com/61_games.htmlfor the full sordid > story of "My 61 Memorable Games" Can the patent be claimed by someone else if the fees are paid?   Date: 17 Jun 2008 14:13:55 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 17, 9:35 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 The problem is Trice doesn't own the patent any more, he lost it by not paying the maintenance fees which were due three years after he was first awarded the patent: http://www.latepatents.net/6481716.htm I believe Trice is stony broke. If he had any money he wouldn't be trying to rip off a complete stranger for $6000. The risk involved was enormous and he could still end up going to prison for it (fingers crossed). Jon D'Souza-Eva Read http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html for the full sordid story of "My 61 Memorable Games"   Date: 17 Jun 2008 13:35:37 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice 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   Date: 17 Jun 2008 12:28:37 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 17, 2:09=A0pm, Edward Labate <[email protected] > wrote: > On May 8th, I, Edward Labate, through my attorney Alfred T. Newell, > mailed Ed Trice/Gothic Chess the following 'Demand For Retraction', > > ALFRED T. NEWELL, IV > ATTORNEY AT LAW > P. O. =A0Box 101432 > BIRMINGHAM, AL 35210-6432 > PHONE (205) 956-8281 > FAX (205) 951-2855 > > NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR RETRACTION > > TO: =A0 =A0 =A0ED TRICE > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 GOTHIC CHESS ASSOCIATION > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1735 MARKET STREET SUITE A-456 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 > > DEAR ED TRICE: > > PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENTS EDWARD LABATE. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ON THE 1st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 THROUGH THE 7TH D= AY OF > MAY, 2008 YOU PUBLISHED FALSE AND DEFAMATORY REMARKS BY PUBLISHING > ARTICLES, LETTERS, EMAILS, OR MATTER, COPIES OF WHICH ARE ATTACHED > HERETO REGARDING EDWARD LABATE; > > 1] IN THAT YOU SAID =93Ed Labate =3D "Helgi" from "My 61 Memorable Games= =94, > NOW ESTABLISHED AS A BOOK PUBLISHING HOAX; > > 2] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF SELLING A FRAUDULENT BOBBY FISCHER > AUTOGRAPHED BOOK, MY 60 MEMORABLE GAMES; > > 3] ALSO =A0ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF BEING THE PERPATRATOR OF THE =91My 61 > Memorable Games=92 HOAX TO THE POINT OF ACTUALLY PRINTING A VERY LARGE > QUANTITY OF SAID BOOKS AND THEN SHIPPING THEM TO EUROPE; > > 4] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF POSTING FRAUDLENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH > YOU ON HIS WEBSITE; > > 5] ALSO STATED YOU ARE IN POSSESSION OF "...an AOL representative's > letter stating they were spoofed, fabricated entirely by Labate." > > 6] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF FABRICATING AND 'DOCTORING' > CORRESPONDENCE FROM OTHER CONTACTS; > > 7] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF FABRICATING EMAILS WITH CATHY PURDY > OF BOOKMASTERS, YOUR CONTACT PERSON WHEN YOU YOURSELF INQUIRED ABOUT > PRINTING =91My 61 Memorable Games=92 IN THE SUMMER OF 2007. > > 8] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF FABRICATING YOUR ATTEMPTS TO PROCURE > INVESTORS FOR YOUR UNATHORIZED PRINTING OF =91My 61 Memorable Games=92, > INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FRANK CAMARATTA, BRUCE TOWELL, ETC. > > 9] ALSO STATED YOU SUCCESSFULLY HAD THE LIMESTONE COUNTY SHERIFF VISIT > EDWARD LABATE ON OR ABOUT JAN. 17, 2008, AT HIS 'RESIDENCE' WHEREIN HE > HAD NOT RESIDED SINCE JUNE 2007; > > 10] ALSO YOU POSTED ON CHESSGAMES.COM; > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Labate, you're the liar who fabricated EVERYTHING on that= > page. And since you don't know what "per se defamation" is, you've > been invited to Philadelphia to learn all about it. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You claim the sheriff never visited your house, yet why th= en, > did you remove the slander from your eBay auction one day later? I > called and spoke with "Pat" (who answers their phone) many times. I > called the local police on you because HARASSMENT is the first item > that needs filing before civil proceedings commence. And the local > police told me it was a Limestone County issue, since the mudhole you > live in does not dispatch officers to your location. That's already on > the ledger, first thing's first. > =A0 =A0 =A0 I've already have had an arbitration board convene to assess > damages at $1000 per day for each day you have that b.s. on your page. > I've asked you to remove it, you've refused (God knows what you have > to gain by it) so now each day from the first day of contact will be > money in my pocket. I've already negotiated 50 cents on the dollar to > a firm that buys civil judgments. Let's see where you'll move to next, > since you have gone bankrupt in California." > > SAID REMARKS, ARTICLES, LETTERS OR EMAILS WERE PUBLISHED TO THE > GENERAL PUBLIC AND STILL REMAIN POSTED TO THIS DAY UNDER your name of > Ed Trice, as well as your numerous aliases, including but not limited > to, 'James', 'Mark', 'Paul Mugno', 'Blood of Bulls', 'ChessV'; 'Alan > McCormick', 'GothicChessInventor'; 'AverageWoodpusher'; > > to numerous websites but not limited to; chessgames.com; > chessninja.com; NY Times Daily Blog; ChessVibes.com; uschess.org; > redhotpawn.com, polgarchess.com; GothicChess.com; etc.; > > to NUMEROUS CONTACTS BUT NOT LIMITED TO, FRANK CAMARATTA, House of > Staunton; =A0DAN HEISMAN, Chess Master, Teacher, and Chess Columnist; > CATHY PURDY, Printer/Bookmasters; Ed Hall, US Chess Executive > Director, etc. > > PURSUANT TO CODE OF ALABAMA, 1975, 6-5-186, I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU > PUBLISH A FULL AND FAIR RETRACTION OF SUCH ACCUSATIONS IN AN EQUALLY > PUBLIC AND PROMINENT PLACE AND MANNER WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS OF YOUR > RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 DATED THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2008. > > SINCERELY YOURS, > > _______________________________________ > > ALFRED T. NEWELL, IV > ATTORNEY AT LAW > > which was received and signed for on May 12, 2008. =A0Instead of Ed > Trice retracting all his lies, he continues to provide more counts for > my lawsuit. > > Therefore, we have no choice and are proceeding with a Multi-Million > Lawsuit against Ed Trice for libel/defamation. =A0As anyone who has been > involved in a lawsuit know, the first thing each side files are > discoveries and requests for depositions. =A0This is where the 'fun' now > starts. =A0Everything you say in these are considered 'under oath' and > false statement are criminal acts, punishable by fines and jail time. > For example Ed Trice claims that I had 'My 61 Memorable Games' > printed. =A0Our very first question will be for Ed Trice to provide > proof of this statement. =A0Now let's see whose story changes, and whose > story remains the same!! > > Additionally, anyone receiving this notice and publishes Ed Trice's > lies, will also be held accountable. =A0I am sick and tired of these > last six months having to deal with this scumbag Trice, who can't seem > to read a damn thing presented to him. =A0 I have never, ever dealt with > such a low life in my 53 years. =A0And yes, some of you will be getting > letters as to your communication with Ed Trice. =A0I'm sorry, but I > didn't bring this on, Ed Trice did. > > I will admit it, I have only one goal: > > To destroy Ed Trice for lying about me, and for taking advantage of a > dying Bobby Fischer!! =A0Bobby Fischer is on his deathbed, and Ed Trice > is claiming he's got Fischer's permission to reprint My 61 Memorable > Games. =A0FOLKS: =A0Is there a lower LOWLIFE in the chess community than > Ed Trice??? > > Edward Labate > > May 23, 2008 Do you have evidence he was served? Looks as if you may become the owner of the Gothic Chess patent. Any plans for it?   Date: 17 Jun 2008 12:09:39 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On May 8th, I, Edward Labate, through my attorney Alfred T. Newell, mailed Ed Trice/Gothic Chess the following 'Demand For Retraction', ALFRED T. NEWELL, IV ATTORNEY AT LAW P. O. Box 101432 BIRMINGHAM, AL 35210-6432 PHONE (205) 956-8281 FAX (205) 951-2855 NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR RETRACTION TO: ED TRICE GOTHIC CHESS ASSOCIATION 1735 MARKET STREET SUITE A-456 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 DEAR ED TRICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENTS EDWARD LABATE. ON THE 1st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 THROUGH THE 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2008 YOU PUBLISHED FALSE AND DEFAMATORY REMARKS BY PUBLISHING ARTICLES, LETTERS, EMAILS, OR MATTER, COPIES OF WHICH ARE ATTACHED HERETO REGARDING EDWARD LABATE; 1] IN THAT YOU SAID =93Ed Labate =3D "Helgi" from "My 61 Memorable Games=94,= NOW ESTABLISHED AS A BOOK PUBLISHING HOAX; 2] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF SELLING A FRAUDULENT BOBBY FISCHER AUTOGRAPHED BOOK, MY 60 MEMORABLE GAMES; 3] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF BEING THE PERPATRATOR OF THE =91My 61 Memorable Games=92 HOAX TO THE POINT OF ACTUALLY PRINTING A VERY LARGE QUANTITY OF SAID BOOKS AND THEN SHIPPING THEM TO EUROPE; 4] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF POSTING FRAUDLENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH YOU ON HIS WEBSITE; 5] ALSO STATED YOU ARE IN POSSESSION OF "...an AOL representative's letter stating they were spoofed, fabricated entirely by Labate." 6] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF FABRICATING AND 'DOCTORING' CORRESPONDENCE FROM OTHER CONTACTS; 7] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF FABRICATING EMAILS WITH CATHY PURDY OF BOOKMASTERS, YOUR CONTACT PERSON WHEN YOU YOURSELF INQUIRED ABOUT PRINTING =91My 61 Memorable Games=92 IN THE SUMMER OF 2007. 8] ALSO ACCUSED EDWARD LABATE OF FABRICATING YOUR ATTEMPTS TO PROCURE INVESTORS FOR YOUR UNATHORIZED PRINTING OF =91My 61 Memorable Games=92, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FRANK CAMARATTA, BRUCE TOWELL, ETC. 9] ALSO STATED YOU SUCCESSFULLY HAD THE LIMESTONE COUNTY SHERIFF VISIT EDWARD LABATE ON OR ABOUT JAN. 17, 2008, AT HIS 'RESIDENCE' WHEREIN HE HAD NOT RESIDED SINCE JUNE 2007; 10] ALSO YOU POSTED ON CHESSGAMES.COM; "Labate, you're the liar who fabricated EVERYTHING on that page. And since you don't know what "per se defamation" is, you've been invited to Philadelphia to learn all about it. You claim the sheriff never visited your house, yet why then, did you remove the slander from your eBay auction one day later? I called and spoke with "Pat" (who answers their phone) many times. I called the local police on you because HARASSMENT is the first item that needs filing before civil proceedings commence. And the local police told me it was a Limestone County issue, since the mudhole you live in does not dispatch officers to your location. That's already on the ledger, first thing's first. I've already have had an arbitration board convene to assess damages at $1000 per day for each day you have that b.s. on your page. I've asked you to remove it, you've refused (God knows what you have to gain by it) so now each day from the first day of contact will be money in my pocket. I've already negotiated 50 cents on the dollar to a firm that buys civil judgments. Let's see where you'll move to next, since you have gone bankrupt in California." SAID REMARKS, ARTICLES, LETTERS OR EMAILS WERE PUBLISHED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND STILL REMAIN POSTED TO THIS DAY UNDER your name of Ed Trice, as well as your numerous aliases, including but not limited to, 'James', 'Mark', 'Paul Mugno', 'Blood of Bulls', 'ChessV'; 'Alan McCormick', 'GothicChessInventor'; 'AverageWoodpusher'; to numerous websites but not limited to; chessgames.com; chessninja.com; NY Times Daily Blog; ChessVibes.com; uschess.org; redhotpawn.com, polgarchess.com; GothicChess.com; etc.; to NUMEROUS CONTACTS BUT NOT LIMITED TO, FRANK CAMARATTA, House of Staunton; DAN HEISMAN, Chess Master, Teacher, and Chess Columnist; CATHY PURDY, Printer/Bookmasters; Ed Hall, US Chess Executive Director, etc. PURSUANT TO CODE OF ALABAMA, 1975, 6-5-186, I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU PUBLISH A FULL AND FAIR RETRACTION OF SUCH ACCUSATIONS IN AN EQUALLY PUBLIC AND PROMINENT PLACE AND MANNER WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER. DATED THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2008. SINCERELY YOURS, _______________________________________ ALFRED T. NEWELL, IV ATTORNEY AT LAW which was received and signed for on May 12, 2008. Instead of Ed Trice retracting all his lies, he continues to provide more counts for my lawsuit. Therefore, we have no choice and are proceeding with a Multi-Million Lawsuit against Ed Trice for libel/defamation. As anyone who has been involved in a lawsuit know, the first thing each side files are discoveries and requests for depositions. This is where the 'fun' now starts. Everything you say in these are considered 'under oath' and false statement are criminal acts, punishable by fines and jail time. For example Ed Trice claims that I had 'My 61 Memorable Games' printed. Our very first question will be for Ed Trice to provide proof of this statement. Now let's see whose story changes, and whose story remains the same!! Additionally, anyone receiving this notice and publishes Ed Trice's lies, will also be held accountable. I am sick and tired of these last six months having to deal with this scumbag Trice, who can't seem to read a damn thing presented to him. I have never, ever dealt with such a low life in my 53 years. And yes, some of you will be getting letters as to your communication with Ed Trice. I'm sorry, but I didn't bring this on, Ed Trice did. I will admit it, I have only one goal: To destroy Ed Trice for lying about me, and for taking advantage of a dying Bobby Fischer!! Bobby Fischer is on his deathbed, and Ed Trice is claiming he's got Fischer's permission to reprint My 61 Memorable Games. FOLKS: Is there a lower LOWLIFE in the chess community than Ed Trice??? Edward Labate May 23, 2008     Date: 18 Jun 2008 12:31:44 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 18, 1:18=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:e3a36ad8-a2c6-4fbf-a053-83ce1209fead@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 18, 12:01 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> If the patent for Gothic Chess has truely expired... perhaps it could > >> be marketed as "Fischer Chess" in honor of Bobby. > > > That is ridiculous. Fischer had nothing, nothing, nothing to do with > > Gothic Chess. > > > Are you a paid agent for Ed Trice? > > > Are you Ed Trice? > > > Did you try to scam Ed Trice for $35,000? > > > Sam Sloan > > Even after Sloan's volte face re Ed Trice, Sloan repeats Trice's libel > against Rob Mitchell which he read on a Trice site. > > Sloan ignores that Trice wanted a movie, and that the money mentioned > [actually, not hardly enough] was to promote that movie, and that what he > quotes is from a draft agreement, not even the last draft, and which is B= TW > in contradiction of a non-disclosure agreement. > > Still, the Sloan is happy to libel Mitchell, because he needs to do that = to > achieve any attention at all. > > Trice may be 3 times and out. But Sloan is innumerably trite. > > Phil Innes "Which-Mitch" ? lol     Date: 18 Jun 2008 11:14:50 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 18, 12:43=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jun 18, 12:01 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If the patent for Gothic Chess has truely expired... perhaps it could > > be marketed as "Fischer Chess" in honor of Bobby. > That is ridiculous. Fischer had nothing, nothing, nothing to do with > Gothic Chess. True. > Are you a paid agent for Ed Trice? God NO! LOL Are you? > > Are you Ed Trice? No! Are you? > > Did you try to scam Ed Trice for $35,000? No. Did you? > > Sam Sloan     Date: 18 Jun 2008 10:43:02 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 18, 12:01 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > > If the patent for Gothic Chess has truely expired... perhaps it could > be marketed as "Fischer Chess" in honor of Bobby. That is ridiculous. Fischer had nothing, nothing, nothing to do with Gothic Chess. Are you a paid agent for Ed Trice? Are you Ed Trice? Did you try to scam Ed Trice for $35,000? Sam Sloan       Date: 18 Jun 2008 14:18:07 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:e3a36ad8-a2c6-4fbf-a053-83ce1209fead@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 18, 12:01 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If the patent for Gothic Chess has truely expired... perhaps it could >> be marketed as "Fischer Chess" in honor of Bobby. > > That is ridiculous. Fischer had nothing, nothing, nothing to do with > Gothic Chess. > > Are you a paid agent for Ed Trice? > > Are you Ed Trice? > > Did you try to scam Ed Trice for $35,000? > > Sam Sloan Even after Sloan's volte face re Ed Trice, Sloan repeats Trice's libel against Rob Mitchell which he read on a Trice site. Sloan ignores that Trice wanted a movie, and that the money mentioned [actually, not hardly enough] was to promote that movie, and that what he quotes is from a draft agreement, not even the last draft, and which is BTW in contradiction of a non-disclosure agreement. Still, the Sloan is happy to libel Mitchell, because he needs to do that to achieve any attention at all. Trice may be 3 times and out. But Sloan is innumerably trite. Phil Innes     Date: 18 Jun 2008 10:42:11 From: SBD Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 18, 9:12 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > NORMAN NESCIO'S PROFILE Norman?     Date: 18 Jun 2008 10:40:47 From: SBD Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 18, 11:01 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > If the patent for Gothic Chess has truely expired... perhaps it could > be marketed as "Fischer Chess" in honor of Bobby. Why? Capablanca invented the piece he ripped off. Fischer has his own (questionable) variant. Or I see, you mean, market in terms of making money, sad.     Date: 18 Jun 2008 09:01:07 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 18, 9:12=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > NORMAN NESCIO'S PROFILE > > " This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups > Terms Of Use." > > > > Nomen Nescio wrote: > > Innews:[email protected]= m > > Edward Labate <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 8th, I, Edward Labate, through my attorney Alfred E. Neuman, > > > mailed Ed Trice/Gothic Chess the following 'Demand For Retraction', > > > > ALFRED E. NEUMAN, IV ATTORNEY AT LAW > > > That your attorney shares his name with the icon of > > MAD magazine is fitting. > > > > Is there a lower LOWLIFE in the chess community than > > > Ed Trice??? > > > Easy. Sam H. Sloan to name one. > > > > Edward Labate > > > > May 23, 2008 > > > Fuck your legal threats, biotch.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If the patent for Gothic Chess has truely expired... perhaps it could be marketed as "Fischer Chess" in honor of Bobby.     Date: 18 Jun 2008 07:12:13 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice NORMAN NESCIO'S PROFILE " This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use." Nomen Nescio wrote: > In news:bfb1fdd5-d061-4a19-8181-48b1d472a78b@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com > Edward Labate <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 8th, I, Edward Labate, through my attorney Alfred E. Neuman, > > mailed Ed Trice/Gothic Chess the following 'Demand For Retraction', > > > > ALFRED E. NEUMAN, IV ATTORNEY AT LAW > > That your attorney shares his name with the icon of > MAD magazine is fitting. > > > Is there a lower LOWLIFE in the chess community than > > Ed Trice??? > > Easy. Sam H. Sloan to name one. > > > Edward Labate > > > > May 23, 2008 > > Fuck your legal threats, biotch.     Date: 18 Jun 2008 10:00:05 From: Nomen Nescio Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice In news:bfb1fdd5-d061-4a19-8181-48b1d472a78b@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com Edward Labate <[email protected] > wrote: > On May 8th, I, Edward Labate, through my attorney Alfred E. Neuman, > mailed Ed Trice/Gothic Chess the following 'Demand For Retraction', > > ALFRED E. NEUMAN, IV ATTORNEY AT LAW That your attorney shares his name with the icon of MAD magazine is fitting. > Is there a lower LOWLIFE in the chess community than > Ed Trice??? Easy. Sam H. Sloan to name one. > Edward Labate > > May 23, 2008 Fuck your legal threats, biotch.   Date: 15 Jun 2008 07:13:40 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 13, 6:30 pm, [email protected] wrote: > The only time Gothic Chess was played by more than a handful of people > is when it was on BrainKing.com. Unfortunately when Ed Trice was > allowed to be the moderator of the Gothic Chess message board be ended > up banning 43 people! Gothic Chess was eventually removed from the > site altogether. > > Trice liked to invent fictitious characters even then. Here is his > impression of a school girl called "ScarletRose":http://brainking.com/en/B= oard?bc=3D34&u=3D2925 > > "I expected to see a man who was all business like wearing dark rimmed > glasses and having a pencil stuck behind his ear.. But, you seem far > from that.. You actually are a nice looking man there Trice.." > > Creepy stuff. I think I prefer him as a 63 year old night watchman. It is obvious that both "Victor Rose" and "Scarlet Rose" (father- daughter?) are fake personalities created by Ed Trice, especially since she often writes about how "intelligent" he is. Here is one quote from a posting by "Scarlet Rose": "I do not mean to say Ed wasn=92t tempted to come down to everyone else=92s level.. Cause he is only human.. And he did at times.. That is when I started chatting more with him.. Seeing his side of the playing field.. And I learned that I was one lucky gal to have pushed the feelings aside that were openly stated throughout the site and actually get to know who is he rather than cast judgment on him for his type written words.. I am glad to call him a great friend. I have learned he has a wonderful sense of humor, is very intelligent and very real."   Date: 13 Jun 2008 16:30:54 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice The only time Gothic Chess was played by more than a handful of people is when it was on BrainKing.com. Unfortunately when Ed Trice was allowed to be the moderator of the Gothic Chess message board be ended up banning 43 people! Gothic Chess was eventually removed from the site altogether. Trice liked to invent fictitious characters even then. Here is his impression of a school girl called "ScarletRose": http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=34&u=2925 "I expected to see a man who was all business like wearing dark rimmed glasses and having a pencil stuck behind his ear.. But, you seem far from that.. You actually are a nice looking man there Trice.." Creepy stuff. I think I prefer him as a 63 year old night watchman. On Jun 12, 7:48 pm, [email protected] wrote: > I am a night watchman. I also post regularly to the Gothic Chess Blog. > I also play on the Gothic-Chess.com game server. Someone sent an email > to everyone on the Gothic Chess blog with a link back to this page. > For whatever reason. I came here because one of you baiters asked me > and the rest of the Gothic Chess people here. I only posted because > all of you Labate supporters are out of your minds. Ed Labate is > mentally retarded. I've played Ed Trice many times. I've watched Ed > Trice play Cartaphilus and I watched both of them yell at each other > on the web, back and forth, for half a hour sometimes. Other people > played Ed while Cartaphilus was online also playing during the many > online tournaments that were run. You guys just say nonsense and > expect everyone to believe it. > > Well, you're all wrong!   Date: 13 Jun 2008 05:10:54 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 12, 1:48 pm, [email protected] wrote: > I am a night watchman. I also post regularly to the Gothic Chess Blog. > I also play on the Gothic-Chess.com game server. Someone sent an email > to everyone on the Gothic Chess blog with a link back to this page. > For whatever reason. I came here because one of you baiters asked me > and the rest of the Gothic Chess people here. I only posted because > all of you Labate supporters are out of your minds. Ed Labate is > mentally retarded. I've played Ed Trice many times. I've watched Ed > Trice play Cartaphilus and I watched both of them yell at each other > on the web, back and forth, for half a hour sometimes. Other people > played Ed while Cartaphilus was online also playing during the many > online tournaments that were run. You guys just say nonsense and > expect everyone to believe it. > > Well, you're all wrong! Can you provide us with that email that linked back to this? I don't know how you would get someones info off of a "blog". Also, if they got your information off of the discussion group they would have to be a member of that group and we could try to figure out who it was that sent the email. Would you please post the email here?   Date: 12 Jun 2008 15:22:24 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice So now Ed Trice lives in Montgomery County? I thought it was Delaware County? Or it is Delaware state? And I have today and tomorrow off to celebrate my 40th Wedding Anniversary. Or do you believe that while most weddings that happen in June somehow excludes me? I just log on to get a great laugh out loud. Your lives are so pathetic that this actually matters to you. Mr. Labate, you are insane. That is my opinion. My name is Victor Rosen, I turn 63 on July 1, and I approved this message. On 12 Jun, 15:45, Edward Labate <[email protected] > wrote: > "On Jun 12, 1:55 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Ok Mr. Labate where is your ironclad proof?" > > It could only be Ed Trice who would view mountains and mountains of > substantiating evidence and ask such a MORONIC question. > > "I've played Ed Trice many times." > Yes, I actually believe you...it doesn't surprise me that Ed Trice > plays with himself regularly! > > "You can't even imagine there is someone who actually is not Ed Trice > that posts here against you, can you?" > Correct, at least not without half a brain! =A0You haven't refuted > anything I've posted. =A0You've resorted to typical Triceism...name > calling and denial, never, ever solid refutation!! > > "I am a night watchman." > "My shift is over at 8 AM so have fun." > You're working overtime today...since you've already admitted you do > all you posting up until 8am?? =A0Again, you forgot an earlier lie, > while presenting new fabrication=85Vintage Trice: =A0Bad Memory!! > > "someone filed an eBay complaint against you" > Only Ed Trice would see the posting on my website, ignore all the > correspondence between Paypal, and myself, ignore the simply little > fact, that the PAYPAL claim was denied and that PAYPAL returned the $$ > to me, and only Ed Trice would overlook the simple little fact the > German Ed Trice, Olaf Wolna, retaliated by leaving 5 negatives and 6 > neutrals because he couldn't keep the $$$ and the books. =A0Cracked?? > Nope, it's called exposing SCAMMERS and FRAUDS...in Germany, it's Olaf > Wolna...here in the US, we have Ed Trice!! > > How come Ed Trice/Gothic Chess isn't on ebay?? =A0Sales are sales, > arent' they? =A0Ed Trice wouldn't last six months on ebay. =A0Scammers get= > exposed very quickly, and get tossed. =A0Ed Trice knows his scams > wouldn't work on ebay!! > > Ed Trice...how about posting an image of your British Passport on your > website...as well as some of the documents you must obviously have in > your possession from the US Government granting your request to give > up US citizenship. =A0You post an ebay auction, but won=92t post > supporting documentation of renouncing US citizenship, and your new > British Passport, along with supporting documentation. > > Additionally, if you were a English Citizen in 2006, how do you lose a > court case in 2007, costing you $25,000.00.http://webapp.montcopa.org/PSI/= Viewer/Detail.aspx?oq=3DaWQ9MjAwNTQ2Njk1... > =A0 =A0 =A0I guess allegience to the crown didn't save your 'English' > wallet?? > > And here's another email I received while typing up this response: > > -----Original Message----- > From: #### > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:20 PM > To: Edward Labate > Subject: Re: FW: "I am still, in every respect, an English citizen > > with a British Passport currently on American soil." > > I agree with you completely. =A0Trice makes everyone hate him no matter > where he goes online. =A0He is the *only* person kicked off of > chessvariants.org. =A0He was also kicked off of brainking.com (well, OK, > he's still allowed to play games there as long as he shuts up). =A0He > made everyone at wikipedia.org editing the same articles hate him. =A0He > was a terror to the online checkers community in the 1990s (I remember > some checkers ladder being stopped because of Trice's harassing > lawsuit threats). =A0He made a fool of himself and more than one enemey > over at redhotpawn.com. > > I have never seen him acknowledge the truth; and I have never seen him > apologize. > > He's dead meat now. =A0He wasn't able to censor your page telling the > truth about him with threats the way he was able to over at > chessvariants.org. =A0People can now know what he is about and who he > really is. > > - ###" > > Yes Ed Trice, everyone knows this is you. =A0No one as dark and as evil > as you could possibly have friends, let alone supporters if they fully > knew your history. > > FOLKS, there aren't two people this evil, this stupid and this slimely > in the chess world. > > I REPEAT: VINTAGE TRICE ALIAS!! =A0Somebody that has never posted on > this site, who know admits only posting on GothicChess, 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 (who leaves > work @ 8am, but decides to stay later today), with access to various > computers, and numerous search abilities, and now he's CIA material! > > ALSO, MUST READING / Please forward as a warning and Public Service > Announcement/PSA to all you know:http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.htmlR= E: My 61 Memorable Games > SCAMhttp://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.htmlRE: 'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed > Tricehttp://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlmRE: Convicted Felon/ > Pedophile, Robert Snyder > > Best Wishes, > Edward Labate   Date: 12 Jun 2008 12:45:25 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice "On Jun 12, 1:55 pm, [email protected] wrote: Ok Mr. Labate where is your ironclad proof?" It could only be Ed Trice who would view mountains and mountains of substantiating evidence and ask such a MORONIC question. "I've played Ed Trice many times." Yes, I actually believe you...it doesn't surprise me that Ed Trice plays with himself regularly! "You can't even imagine there is someone who actually is not Ed Trice that posts here against you, can you?" Correct, at least not without half a brain! You haven't refuted anything I've posted. You've resorted to typical Triceism...name calling and denial, never, ever solid refutation!! "I am a night watchman." "My shift is over at 8 AM so have fun." You're working overtime today...since you've already admitted you do all you posting up until 8am?? Again, you forgot an earlier lie, while presenting new fabrication=85Vintage Trice: Bad Memory!! "someone filed an eBay complaint against you" Only Ed Trice would see the posting on my website, ignore all the correspondence between Paypal, and myself, ignore the simply little fact, that the PAYPAL claim was denied and that PAYPAL returned the $$ to me, and only Ed Trice would overlook the simple little fact the German Ed Trice, Olaf Wolna, retaliated by leaving 5 negatives and 6 neutrals because he couldn't keep the $$$ and the books. Cracked?? Nope, it's called exposing SCAMMERS and FRAUDS...in Germany, it's Olaf Wolna...here in the US, we have Ed Trice!! How come Ed Trice/Gothic Chess isn't on ebay?? Sales are sales, arent' they? Ed Trice wouldn't last six months on ebay. Scammers get exposed very quickly, and get tossed. Ed Trice knows his scams wouldn't work on ebay!! Ed Trice...how about posting an image of your British Passport on your website...as well as some of the documents you must obviously have in your possession from the US Government granting your request to give up US citizenship. You post an ebay auction, but won=92t post supporting documentation of renouncing US citizenship, and your new British Passport, along with supporting documentation. Additionally, if you were a English Citizen in 2006, how do you lose a court case in 2007, costing you $25,000.00. http://webapp.montcopa.org/PSI/Viewer/Detail.aspx?oq=3DaWQ9MjAwNTQ2Njk1JmVud= Gl0eT1DYXNl I guess allegience to the crown didn't save your 'English' wallet?? And here's another email I received while typing up this response: -----Original Message----- From: #### Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:20 PM To: Edward Labate Subject: Re: FW: "I am still, in every respect, an English citizen with a British Passport currently on American soil." I agree with you completely. Trice makes everyone hate him no matter where he goes online. He is the *only* person kicked off of chessvariants.org. He was also kicked off of brainking.com (well, OK, he's still allowed to play games there as long as he shuts up). He made everyone at wikipedia.org editing the same articles hate him. He was a terror to the online checkers community in the 1990s (I remember some checkers ladder being stopped because of Trice's harassing lawsuit threats). He made a fool of himself and more than one enemey over at redhotpawn.com. I have never seen him acknowledge the truth; and I have never seen him apologize. He's dead meat now. He wasn't able to censor your page telling the truth about him with threats the way he was able to over at chessvariants.org. People can now know what he is about and who he really is. - ###" Yes Ed Trice, everyone knows this is you. No one as dark and as evil as you could possibly have friends, let alone supporters if they fully knew your history. FOLKS, there aren't two people this evil, this stupid and this slimely in the chess world. I REPEAT: VINTAGE TRICE ALIAS!! Somebody that has never posted on this site, who know admits only posting on GothicChess, 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 (who leaves work @ 8am, but decides to stay later today), with access to various computers, and numerous search abilities, and now he's CIA material! 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 http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html RE: 'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed Trice http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlm RE: Convicted Felon/ Pedophile, Robert Snyder Best Wishes, Edward Labate   Date: 12 Jun 2008 11:55:30 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Ok Mr. Labate where is your ironclad proof? Or are you just making more statements and you actually believe people trust you? You can't even imagine there is someone who actually is not Ed Trice that posts here against you, can you? Because you are so arrogant and so full of yourself. I went to your wesbite and saw that someone filed an eBay complaint against you, the first one, and you went berzerk. You lost your marbles. You had a screw loose. You cracked. So either you are right and always right or everyone else is against you and everyone else is wrong. That's what I call 1 fucked up person. > Does Ed Trice every complete a paragraph without LYING? > > "From: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:23:24 -0400 > Subject: 3rd request > To: > CC: > > I'll save you a great deal of effort. > > I rescinded my US Citizenship in July of 2006 when the Fischer-Kaprov > match took shape and we accumulated over $20 million in pledged > European airing contracts should the event take place. I did so under > advice of my attorneys at Hodgson Russ LLC, who said any moneys I > receive as a US citizen could be in jeopardy otherwise. > > It was a recalcitrant process to swear allegiance to the Crown, which > took a tremendous amount of effort to overcome the coddling request to > maintain dual citizenship. I did so as a single citizen of England, > and England only. I managed to complete the ordeal in a record timely > fashion. I own property in the West End of London, I've been 'on the > books' as a full time consultant and contractor there, and I am still, > in every respect, an English citizen with a British Passport currently > on American soil. > > I have not, as of yet, re-patriated myself. > > So make all the noise you want, I'm not motivated in any way to > respond. > > Subsequent contact will be forwarded to the local police and I will > file complaints of Misdemeanor Harassment. You have been warned." > > Oh really?? > > "-----Original Message----- > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:14 PM > To: Edward Labate > Subject: Re: "I am still, in every respect, an English citizen with a > > British Passport currently on American soil." > > Hi Edward, > > This is another laughable lie from Trice. It takes years to become a > British citizen (I have never even heard of the term "English citizen" > before). > > Take a look at this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_citizenship#Acquisitio= n_of_British_ci... > > If Trice married a British woman he could become a British citizen > after three years IF HE LIVED IN BRITAIN! > > If Trice was not married to a British woman he would need to live in > Britain for five years. > > These figures are a minimum requirement, it generally takes a great > deal longer and one thing they are very keen on is that the person is > working for a British company, has skills that are needed and intends > to live and work in the UK. > > And of course, how could Trice get by this: =A0"All applicants for > naturalisation must be of "good character". =A0I guess being a terminal > liar makes you something of a 'character'?! > > It is laughable that Trice thinks he could renounce his American > citizenship and become British just like that. > > Speak to you soon." > > The relevent portion: > > "British citizenship by naturalisation: > The requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen depend on > whether one is married to a British citizen or not. > > For those married to a British citizen the applicant must: > > hold indefinite leave to remain in the UK (or an "equivalent (for this > purpose) such as Right of Abode, Irish citizenship, or permanent > residency as a citizen of an EU/EEA) > have lived legally in the UK for three years > show sufficient knowledge of life in the UK, either by passing the > Life in the United Kingdom test or by attending combined English > language and citizenship classes. Proof of this must be supplied with > one's application for naturalisation. Exemption from this and the > language requirement (see below) is normally granted for those aged 65 > or over, and may be granted to those aged between 60 and 65 > meet specified English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic language competence > standards. Those who pass the Life in the UK test are deemed to meet > English language requirements > For those not married to a British citizen the requirements are: > > five years legal residence in the UK > indefinite leave to remain or "equivalent" for this purpose (see > above) must have been held for 12 months > the applicant must intend to continue to live in the UK or work > overseas for the UK government or a British corporation or > association > the same language and knowledge of life in the UK standards apply as > for those married to British citizens > All applicants for naturalisation must be of "good character". > Naturalisation is at the discretion of the relevant authority but is > normally granted if the requirements are met. > > Those applying for British citizenship in the Channel Islands and Isle > of Man (where the application is mainly based on residence in the > Crown Dependencies rather than the UK itself) do not have to sit the > Life in the UK Test under policies in effect as of August 2006. In due > course, it is expected that Regulations will be introduced to that > effect in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The provisions for > proving knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic remain > unchanged until that date for applicants in the Crown Dependencies. In > the rare cases where an applicant is able to apply for naturalisation > from outside the United Kingdom, a paper based version of the Life in > the UK Test may be available at a British diplomatic mission. Details > (pdf)" > > Best Wishes! > Edward Labate > > ALSO, MUST READING / Please forward as a warning and Public Service > Announcement/PSA to all you know:http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.htmlR= E: My 61 Memorable Games > Hoaxhttp://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.htmlRE: 'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed Trice/= > Gothic Chesshttp://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlmRE: Convicted Fe= lon/ > Pedophile, Robert Snyder   Date: 12 Jun 2008 11:48:11 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice I am a night watchman. I also post regularly to the Gothic Chess Blog. I also play on the Gothic-Chess.com game server. Someone sent an email to everyone on the Gothic Chess blog with a link back to this page. For whatever reason. I came here because one of you baiters asked me and the rest of the Gothic Chess people here. I only posted because all of you Labate supporters are out of your minds. Ed Labate is mentally retarded. I've played Ed Trice many times. I've watched Ed Trice play Cartaphilus and I watched both of them yell at each other on the web, back and forth, for half a hour sometimes. Other people played Ed while Cartaphilus was online also playing during the many online tournaments that were run. You guys just say nonsense and expect everyone to believe it. Well, you're all wrong!   Date: 12 Jun 2008 03:40:35 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Does Ed Trice every complete a paragraph without LYING? "From: [email protected] Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:23:24 -0400 Subject: 3rd request To: CC: I'll save you a great deal of effort. I rescinded my US Citizenship in July of 2006 when the Fischer-Kaprov match took shape and we accumulated over $20 million in pledged European airing contracts should the event take place. I did so under advice of my attorneys at Hodgson Russ LLC, who said any moneys I receive as a US citizen could be in jeopardy otherwise. It was a recalcitrant process to swear allegiance to the Crown, which took a tremendous amount of effort to overcome the coddling request to maintain dual citizenship. I did so as a single citizen of England, and England only. I managed to complete the ordeal in a record timely fashion. I own property in the West End of London, I've been 'on the books' as a full time consultant and contractor there, and I am still, in every respect, an English citizen with a British Passport currently on American soil. I have not, as of yet, re-patriated myself. So make all the noise you want, I'm not motivated in any way to respond. Subsequent contact will be forwarded to the local police and I will file complaints of Misdemeanor Harassment. You have been warned." Oh really?? "-----Original Message----- Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:14 PM To: Edward Labate Subject: Re: "I am still, in every respect, an English citizen with a British Passport currently on American soil." Hi Edward, This is another laughable lie from Trice. It takes years to become a British citizen (I have never even heard of the term "English citizen" before). Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_citizenship#Acquisition_of_British_citizenship If Trice married a British woman he could become a British citizen after three years IF HE LIVED IN BRITAIN! If Trice was not married to a British woman he would need to live in Britain for five years. These figures are a minimum requirement, it generally takes a great deal longer and one thing they are very keen on is that the person is working for a British company, has skills that are needed and intends to live and work in the UK. And of course, how could Trice get by this: "All applicants for naturalisation must be of "good character". I guess being a terminal liar makes you something of a 'character'?! It is laughable that Trice thinks he could renounce his American citizenship and become British just like that. Speak to you soon." The relevent portion: "British citizenship by naturalisation: The requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen depend on whether one is married to a British citizen or not. For those married to a British citizen the applicant must: hold indefinite leave to remain in the UK (or an "equivalent (for this purpose) such as Right of Abode, Irish citizenship, or permanent residency as a citizen of an EU/EEA) have lived legally in the UK for three years show sufficient knowledge of life in the UK, either by passing the Life in the United Kingdom test or by attending combined English language and citizenship classes. Proof of this must be supplied with one's application for naturalisation. Exemption from this and the language requirement (see below) is normally granted for those aged 65 or over, and may be granted to those aged between 60 and 65 meet specified English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic language competence standards. Those who pass the Life in the UK test are deemed to meet English language requirements For those not married to a British citizen the requirements are: five years legal residence in the UK indefinite leave to remain or "equivalent" for this purpose (see above) must have been held for 12 months the applicant must intend to continue to live in the UK or work overseas for the UK government or a British corporation or association the same language and knowledge of life in the UK standards apply as for those married to British citizens All applicants for naturalisation must be of "good character". Naturalisation is at the discretion of the relevant authority but is normally granted if the requirements are met. Those applying for British citizenship in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man (where the application is mainly based on residence in the Crown Dependencies rather than the UK itself) do not have to sit the Life in the UK Test under policies in effect as of August 2006. In due course, it is expected that Regulations will be introduced to that effect in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The provisions for proving knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic remain unchanged until that date for applicants in the Crown Dependencies. In the rare cases where an applicant is able to apply for naturalisation from outside the United Kingdom, a paper based version of the Life in the UK Test may be available at a British diplomatic mission. Details (pdf)" Best Wishes! Edward Labate 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 Hoax http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html RE: 'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed Trice/ Gothic Chess http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlm RE: Convicted Felon/ Pedophile, Robert Snyder   Date: 09 Jun 2008 06:57:45 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 6, 2:20=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > Ed Trice also claims to be the co-author of the computer program that > "solved" the game of checkers. > > However, the official website only lists Ed Trice as one of many and > under "database verification" which I suppose means that he played > some games against the computer. > > http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/thankyou/ > > Sam Sloan He also claims to have sold property on Mars to Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Wonder what happens when they find out they are being used to promote this venture? www.legallyownlandonmars.com   Date: 06 Jun 2008 19:25:43 From: RookHouse Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 6, 2:38=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Mr. Rookhouse, > > Welcome to what Mr. Parr fondly calls our Tinytown, a veritable S&M > Coney Island of the Mind. =A0There are enough "pains in the ass" here to > make it a proctologist's paradise. =A0It can be quite difficult to behave > as a normal, civil, everyday, human being here. =A0Most of us get sucked > into the schoolyard name-calling at one time or another. > Rev. Walker, I am not new to this group, as I have been posting here for a few years now. But, you are quite correct in addressing my unprofessionalism and I apologize for the profanity. Mr. Richardby and I have gone back and forth a few times over the course of the last year and I get quite annoyed at his occassional arrogant remarks, especially when they contribute nothing to the conversation at hand. I will certainly attempt to temper my responses in the future. Best Regards, Rook House     Date: 06 Jun 2008 20:14:32 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice RookHouse wrote: > On Jun 6, 2:38 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Mr. Rookhouse, >> >> Welcome to what Mr. Parr fondly calls our Tinytown, a veritable S&M >> Coney Island of the Mind. There are enough "pains in the ass" here to >> make it a proctologist's paradise. It can be quite difficult to behave >> as a normal, civil, everyday, human being here. Most of us get sucked >> into the schoolyard name-calling at one time or another. >> > > Rev. Walker, > > I am not new to this group, as I have been posting here for a few > years now. But, you are quite correct in addressing my > unprofessionalism and I apologize for the profanity. Mr. Richardby > and I have gone back and forth a few times over the course of the last > year and I get quite annoyed at his occassional arrogant remarks, > especially when they contribute nothing to the conversation at hand. > I will certainly attempt to temper my responses in the future. > > Best Regards, > Rook House Mr. Rook House, No apology is necessary. I have had some less than stellar moments here myself. I did not mean to single you out, but I suppose that is how it came across. My remarks were more intended for the general newsgroup audience of rgcp etc. Sometimes I delude myself into thinking I can make a small, but positive, difference. :) -- "Do that which is right..." Rev. J.D. Walker   Date: 06 Jun 2008 12:20:57 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Ed Trice also claims to be the co-author of the computer program that "solved" the game of checkers. However, the official website only lists Ed Trice as one of many and under "database verification" which I suppose means that he played some games against the computer. http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/thankyou/ Sam Sloan   Date: 06 Jun 2008 11:01:23 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On 6 Jun, 13:04, Edward Labate <[email protected] > wrote: > > There's only one Ed Trice, and dozens and dozens of his aliases! > I REPEAT: 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 watchma= n > with access to various computers, and numerous search abilities, and > now he's CIA material! > My favourite Ed Trice alias was John Cartaphilus. Not content with being #1 in the rating list of Gothic Chess players, Trice invented a character called John Cartaphilus and became #2 as well! Of course Trice (as GothicInventor) always saw off the young pretender in the games that he manufactured between them. http://web.archive.org/web/20070703013800/http://www.gothicchesslive.com/pla= yers-games.php (This particular rating list was from the time after Trice pretended that Fischer visited the Gothic Chess site and played a few games as "umbra" - I'm not making this up!) John Cartaphilus started off talking just like Trice: http://tinyurl.com/58zx32 (he is MorphyFischer in this thread that he started back in 2005). Some quotes from this thread: "The Gothic Chess Federation now has just under 20,000 paying members, about 1/3rd the size of the entire United States Chess Federation. This is a chess variant that is "stand alone" and does not play regular" "I am only a 1500 player in chess, and have never won prize money in a USCF tournament. In Gothic Chess, I have taken home $1000 twice, and $2500 once, out of the 9 events I have played in so far." "About 45,000 Gothic Chess sets have been sold to some 55 countries." "It is too late for the elders to decide the matter. Every year, a tournament is held where the winner gets a free college education. The young are flocking to the game, and that is the key ingredient for success. If only the subset of lionized Grandmasters embraced the game, it would die." "I wish you could have read the Gothic Chess Review magazine from September 2004 which reported on the College Scholarship Tournament. A complete accounting of this tournament is made each year, so that those whose tuition is not paid out at once can follow the escrow holdings. 2700 players paid an average of about $150 to play in the event in 2004. Do the math. $400,000 dollars in, maybe $120,000 out =3D $280,000 profit for a 5-day tournament. " "Most of the tournaments are posted in the magazine we recieve, Gothic Chess Review. At one point in time, they were posted on the web as well, but that was discontinued and I am not sure when. Here are some of the events from the old web page. I am not sure how this copy/paste will look: Event Location Participants Foxwoods Open Mashantucket, CT 205 Northern Blitz Hull, Quebec 137 Philaldelphia Collegiate I Philadelphia, PA 65 Chesterfield Blitz Chesterfield, MO 163 Vermont Open Stratton Mountain, VT 185 Tornado Blitz Hattiesburg, MS 88 Jacob's Ladder Social Joshua Tree, CA 310 Tax Break Open Stratton Mountain, VT 83 Pioneer Action Open Norman, OK 73 Autoclub Special Warren, Michigan 115 Philly Collegiate II Philadelphia, PA 81 JMU Club Open Harrisonburg, VA 245 San Diego Open San Diego, CA 439 Austin Quarterfinals Austin, TX 188 Waukesha Memorial Hales Corners, WI 36 Rock County Blitz Janesville, WI 41 Southern States Scholastic Alexandria, VA 152 George Mason Hammers Open George Mason U 67 Kings Island Blitz 1 Kings Island, MO 61 U of T Open Knoxville, TN 155 JMU/Mason Team Tag Harrisonburg, VA 311 JMU summer Warmup cancelled 35 Tempe Time Crunch Tempe, AZ 45 Gothic Moguls of Blitz Loveland, CO 51 Charleston CC Intro to Gothic Charleston, SC 32 Valentine's Gothic Open Macon, GA 61 Titusville Social Titusville, FL 145 Trabuco Canyon Chancellor's Run Trabuco Canyon, CA 98 St Pats Party and Gothic Galore Quincy, MA 285 Blarney Stone Open New York, NY 113 Lucky Blitz Open Phoenix, AZ 69 Gothic Shots & Games Hicksville, NY 205 One More Go Boston, MA 110 Tampa Leprechaon Blitz Tampa Bay, FL 101 Tax Break Open Stratton Mountain, VT 70 New York Spring Open Poughkeepsie, NY 166 U of T Action Gothic 1 Knoxville, TN 214 High School Regionals Kansas City, MO 1280 "Minny" Open Minneapolis, MN 204 Southern States Regionals Atlanta, GA 516 Philadelphia Blitz Open Philadelphia, PA 64 Queen City Open Manchester, NH 55 Hawkeye Cornfest 1 Coralville, IA 49 Orlando Gothic Blitz Orlando, FL 238 NYC Championship New York, NY 316 San Diego Amateur Open San Diego, CA 199 Capital Open Harrisburg, PA 59 Arizona Championship Tempe, AZ 133 Colorado Springs Blitz Colorado Springs, CO 61 Iron Man Open Baltimore, MD 114 Foxwoods Open Mashantucket, CT 168 Raleigh Team Invitational Raleigh, NC 124 Titusville Pool Cleaning Titusville, FL 98 U of T Action Gothic 2 Knoxville, TN 173 Summer Breeze Blitz Chicago, IL 89 Let It Ride Mashantucket, CT 115 Chicago Fire & Rescue Open Chicago, IL 144 Southern Cal Blitz National City, CA 208 Berkeley Knights of Gothic Berkeley, CA 358 Joslyn Park Spectacular Santa Monica, CA 85 Charleston Novice Gothic Charleston, SC 44 Der Kancellor Munich, Germany 219 College Tuition Tournament Kansas City, MO 2974 Hawkeye Cornfest 2 Coralville, IA 63 Land of Lincoln Open Springfield, IL 94 Bucs Blitz & Beer Tampa Bay, FL 92 Jacob's Ladder Blitz Joshua Tree, CA 245 Queen City Action Manchester, NH 65 U of T Action Gothic 3 Knoxville, TN 266 San Diego Professional Core San Diego, CA 136 Minneapolis Blitz Minneapolis, MN 155 Dog Days Of Summer Open New York, NY 208 Foxwoods Action & Blitz Mashantucket, CT 359 Southern Cal Team Blitz National City, CA 160 Charleston Classic Gothic Charleston, SC 72 Berkeley Days of Gothic Berkeley, CA 200 High School Regionals Baltimore, MD 54" Cartaphilus later mutated into a foul mouth oaf who often picked fights with everyone (including Trice): http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3D350 Alas, in early 2008 John Cartaphilus had outlived his usefulness and Trice killed him off in a tragic automobile accident: http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3D393 I couldn't help thinking of the tale of Lieutenant Kij=E9 when I read of his sad demise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Kije   Date: 06 Jun 2008 08:35:18 From: RookHouse Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 6, 8:39=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > > Those capital letters and multiple question marks really make you look > like a rational human being I'd like to have a conversation with. > > Dave. > Those sarcastic remarks and constant jabs at everyone's grammar and punctuation make you look like an annoying pain in the ass.     Date: 06 Jun 2008 11:38:27 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice RookHouse wrote: > On Jun 6, 8:39 am, David Richerby <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Those capital letters and multiple question marks really make you look >> like a rational human being I'd like to have a conversation with. >> >> Dave. >> > > > Those sarcastic remarks and constant jabs at everyone's grammar and > punctuation make you look like an annoying pain in the ass. Mr. Rookhouse, Welcome to what Mr. Parr fondly calls our Tinytown, a veritable S&M Coney Island of the Mind. There are enough "pains in the ass" here to make it a proctologist's paradise. It can be quite difficult to behave as a normal, civil, everyday, human being here. Most of us get sucked into the schoolyard name-calling at one time or another. Still, I salute those that make the effort to cool down when necessary and respond with courtesy, wit and informed comments. -- "Do that which is right..." Rev. J.D. Walker   Date: 06 Jun 2008 05:04:08 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice CORRECTION TO MY LAST POST: 16. [email protected] WROTE "Legal matters are private matters." What a crock...you ever hear of PUBLIC RECORDS???? PUBLIC RECORDS allowed us to find Ed Trice lost his house in 2003: PUBLIC RECORDS allowed us to find out Ed Trice filed for bankruptcy in 2004: PUBLIC RECORDS allowed us to find out Ed Trice lost another case in 2007 for $25,000.00: http://tinyurl.com/49rkog There's only one Ed Trice, and dozens and dozens of his aliases! I REPEAT: 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! 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 http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html RE: 'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed Trice http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlm RE: Convicted Felon/ Pedophile, Robert Snyder   Date: 06 Jun 2008 04:43:33 From: RookHouse Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 6, 2:24=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > It's all made up by Labate, isn't it obvious? > Another "blanket" statement without any actual facts. This is how Trice operates on all of his postings. He's too stupid to even change his tactics when trying to get away with posting under an alias. > > "I support neither of the argumentative people in this internet flame > war. " And yet you still attack Labate and anyone that acknowledges the facts that he has presented, AND you defend Trice (i.e. yourself). Another contradiction of your blind, reckless statements.   Date: 06 Jun 2008 04:24:55 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Again, Ed Trice's ignorance of the law, common sense, and gross inability to logically discuss this forum, or any other forum gives him away...again!!! In between his 'hourly' checks at his post, our 'night watchmen' is able to discern that Ed Trice, without one shred of supporting documentation is telling the truth, and I'm making it all up???? On what planet does this even remotely resembles common sense, let alone follow a logical train of thought???? 16. [email protected] "You can't take anyone to court after you blab about it the way stuff went on here." Ed Trice, you can take anyone to court for any reason, and if it's frivolous, the defendant has a countersuit available. "Legal matters are private matters." What a crock...you ever hear of PUBLIC RECORDS???? PUBLIC RECORDS allowed us to find out you lost your house: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=317580&page=3 PUBLIC RECORDS allowed us to find out you file bankruptcy in 2004: http://tinyurl.com/49rkog "Someone wronged you, you have to go through proper channels. The fact that both people ranted about it on the web is grounds to dismiss anything mentioned as evidence." No Ed Trice, that's called 1st Amendment!! If it's false, as it is in your case, it's LIBEL/DEFAMATION. "Not "defending" anyone, just correcting the errors I see on here while I'm on nightshift." BUT THEN, our 'NIGHT WATCHMAN' blurts out, "It's all made up by Labate, isn't it obvious?" The only thing that's obvious is a too often repeated comment by Ed Trice is now echoed by our beloved 'NIGHT WATCHMAN'! FOLKS, there aren't two people this stupid on our planet. I REPEAT: 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...how's that youtube.com 405 Bench Press coming along????? 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 http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html RE: 'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed Trice http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlm RE: Convicted Felon/ Pedophile, Robert Snyder     Date: 06 Jun 2008 13:39:24 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Edward Labate <[email protected] > wrote: > What a crock...you ever hear of PUBLIC RECORDS???? Those capital letters and multiple question marks really make you look like a rational human being I'd like to have a conversation with. Dave. -- David Richerby Fluorescent Sadistic Cat (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a cat but it wants to hurt you and it'll hurt your eyes!       Date: 06 Jun 2008 08:32:58 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On 06 Jun 2008 13:39:24 +0100 (BST), David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: >Edward Labate <[email protected]> wrote: >> What a crock...you ever hear of PUBLIC RECORDS???? >Those capital letters and multiple question marks really make you look >like a rational human being I'd like to have a conversation with. >Dave. I've had phone conversations and e-mail discussions with Ed when I ordered from his ebay storefront. He's quite rational.   Date: 06 Jun 2008 03:45:03 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Here, for your amusement and edification, is some more Ed Trice bullshit. In a message posted in 2006, he claims to have given up playing in chess tournaments in 1989, when his rating "hit rock bottom at 2207": http://usacheckers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=726&p=3892 Yet such things are simple to check - the USCF site gives a complete tournament history of its members. For Edward A Trice we find: http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12495284 Many tournaments after 1989 and a peak rating of 1457. I do not believe that stronger chess players are necessarily more intelligent or better at non-chess playing activities than weaker ones, but I have contempt for people who pretend to be far stronger chess players than they actually are. I suppose we all tend to exaggerate our playing ability slightly. If I'm discussing my playing strength with non-chess players I will probably mention the fact that I once beat someone who was the 13th strongest player in England at the time and that I regularly play on top board for my county, whilst neglecting to inform them of the time I stalemated a five year old in a serious tournament game. However I think you'd agree that Trice's statements go well beyond this.     Date: 06 Jun 2008 12:18:18 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice <[email protected] > wrote: > I do not believe that stronger chess players are necessarily more > intelligent or better at non-chess playing activities than weaker > ones You won't fit in at all well here, then. ;-) Dave. -- David Richerby Psychotic Hungry Priest (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man of the cloth but it'll eat you and it wants to kill you!   Date: 06 Jun 2008 03:40:15 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Take a look at what is happening over on the Wikipedia biography of Bobby Fischer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bobby_Fischer#No.2C_we_don.27t_need_Gothic_Chess_mentioned_here Somebody (no doubt Ed Trice himself) keeps posting to the biography of Bobby that Bobby agreed to play a match of Gothic Chess. Of course, this is not true, a pure fabrication. Bobby would not even agree to play a match of regular chess. Sam Sloan   Date: 06 Jun 2008 02:38:46 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice 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.html RE: My 61 Memorable Games Hoax http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html RE: 'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed Trice/ Gothic Chess http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlm RE: Convicted Felon/ Pedophile, Robert Snyder   Date: 05 Jun 2008 23:24:28 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice 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? On 5 Jun, 09:35, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > Rook House =A0<[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 8:32=3DA0pm, [email protected] wrote: > >> 7 of the 18 posts here are from jon.dsouza. > > >> Coincidence? > > > I believe that is much more of a coincidence that you ("victorrose") > > have only posted on here 7 times .... EVER. =A0And ALL 7 posts were in > > defense of the ONLY posting I've ever seen about "Ed Trice" on this > > chess group. > > Ed Trice has been mentioned a few times. =A0He even posted here himself, > back in 2001 and earlier. > > But, yeah, I'm always suspicious of these `people' who show up from > nowhere and post only on one subject. > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Love Wat= ch (TM): it's like a precisionwww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/=A0 =A0 chr= onometer that you can share with > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 someone special!     Date: 06 Jun 2008 12:15:39 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice <[email protected] > wrote: > 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. You don't appreciate it but you still come over here to stick your oar in? That's an odd way of expressing your lack of appreciation. Me, I just delete spam and other unwanted mail. > Was good for a few laughs as I see how offbeat and way off base most > of you are. So you don't appreciate it and you think we're all `way off base' but you *still* come here to stick your oar in? Curiouser and curiouser. Dave. -- David Richerby Incredible Poisonous Gnome (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a smiling garden ornament but it'll kill you in seconds and blow your mind!   Date: 05 Jun 2008 10:41:03 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 5, 7:08=A0am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jun 5, 6:59 am, [email protected] wrote: > > Make that VERY little research, ET. :-)   Date: 05 Jun 2008 05:08:04 From: SBD Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 5, 6:59 am, [email protected] wrote: Make that VERY little research, ET.   Date: 05 Jun 2008 04:59:29 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Not "defending" anyone, just correcting the errors I see on here while I'm on nightshift. Little research on "Rook House" =3D blind, factless supporter of Labate. I support neither of the argumentative people in this internet flame war. I post here to demonstrate most of the "facts" shown here are wrong, or incomplete at best. My shift is over at 8 AM so have fun. On 4 Jun, 21:11, Rook House <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jun 4, 8:32=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > 7 of the 18 posts here are from jon.dsouza. > > > Coincidence? > > I believe that is much more of a coincidence that you ("victorrose") > have only posted on here 7 times .... EVER. =A0And ALL 7 posts were in > defense of the ONLY posting I've ever seen about "Ed Trice" on this > chess group. > > Everyone on here knows who you are .... "victorrose". > > And by the way ....... it's HERSEY Hawkins, not HERSHEY. =A0 You would > think that you would know the difference, being a Pennsylvania > resident and all.   Date: 04 Jun 2008 18:11:02 From: Rook House Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 4, 8:32=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > 7 of the 18 posts here are from jon.dsouza. > > Coincidence? I believe that is much more of a coincidence that you ("victorrose") have only posted on here 7 times .... EVER. And ALL 7 posts were in defense of the ONLY posting I've ever seen about "Ed Trice" on this chess group. Everyone on here knows who you are .... "victorrose". And by the way ....... it's HERSEY Hawkins, not HERSHEY. You would think that you would know the difference, being a Pennsylvania resident and all.     Date: 05 Jun 2008 14:35:19 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Rook House <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jun 4, 8:32=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: >> 7 of the 18 posts here are from jon.dsouza. >> >> Coincidence? > > I believe that is much more of a coincidence that you ("victorrose") > have only posted on here 7 times .... EVER. And ALL 7 posts were in > defense of the ONLY posting I've ever seen about "Ed Trice" on this > chess group. Ed Trice has been mentioned a few times. He even posted here himself, back in 2001 and earlier. But, yeah, I'm always suspicious of these `people' who show up from nowhere and post only on one subject. Dave. -- David Richerby Love Watch (TM): it's like a precision www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ chronometer that you can share with someone special!   Date: 04 Jun 2008 17:32:18 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice 7 of the 18 posts here are from jon.dsouza. Coincidence? There is a Delaware County, New York http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_County,_New_York Coincidence? There is a Delaware County, Iowa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_County,_Iowa Coincidence? See anybody can play that game. Just add the word coincidence and pretend you are making a point (which you weren't, by the way.) And according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_County,_Pennsylvania Delaware County, Pennsylvania has over 550,000 residents. That's half a million in case you were wondering. Rehoboth Beach in the state of Delaware is pretty damn far from Delaware County Pennsylvania, New York, and Iowa. What was your point by the way? That you don't know geography? Trice lives in the state of Delaware according to the USCF, not Delaware County, PA. Since I'm a nighttime security guard and the company has subscriptions to some of these online background check services, I did a little more research on the address you listed. That same house was once owned by a pro basketball player, Philadelphia 76er Hershey Hawkins. What fargone conclusion will you draw from that I wonder? Did some research on Brian Colgan. Guess what? He's in London, has been in London over 6 months, and for most of 2007 also. So you're saying Trice is living in the same house with Colgan's wife and kids while he is away? Not very likely. Did you know Trice renounced US citizenship in 2006 so he could pursue the Fischer match and not go against US policy why a US citizen? He had officially has sworn allegiance to the crown. Whether he is back now as a US citizen is unknown. But what is certain is he rejected dual citizenship. Coincidence that Colgan is in London now? You tell me. On 4 Jun, 13:17, [email protected] wrote: > On 4 Jun, 06:05, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > The Delaware addresses are both for a 40 year old with middle initial > > "A". > > The USCF ID page that I saw in one of the posts shows that Edward A > > Trice lives in Delaware. > > So, this must be the person in question. > > > The posts on the Chess Ninja page blame someone from PA for making > > posts. Again, looks like a case of people jumping to a possible > > conclusion. > > I didn't pick up on this when I first read your message, but when I > did a bit of digging around I discovered that there is a Delaware > county in Pennsylvania. > > Moreover, and this is where it gets interesting, the IP address that > you posted your message from (76.117.82.204) can be traced back to > Aston, Pennsylvania. > (go tohttp://www.ip2location.com/, enter 76.117.82.204 in the "Live > Product Demo" and click on "Find Location). > Aston is, needless to say, in Delaware county. > > Isn't that a weird coincidence?   Date: 04 Jun 2008 10:17:50 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On 4 Jun, 06:05, [email protected] wrote: > > The Delaware addresses are both for a 40 year old with middle initial > "A". > The USCF ID page that I saw in one of the posts shows that Edward A > Trice lives in Delaware. > So, this must be the person in question. > > The posts on the Chess Ninja page blame someone from PA for making > posts. Again, looks like a case of people jumping to a possible > conclusion. I didn't pick up on this when I first read your message, but when I did a bit of digging around I discovered that there is a Delaware county in Pennsylvania. Moreover, and this is where it gets interesting, the IP address that you posted your message from (76.117.82.204) can be traced back to Aston, Pennsylvania. (go to http://www.ip2location.com/, enter 76.117.82.204 in the "Live Product Demo" and click on "Find Location). Aston is, needless to say, in Delaware county. Isn't that a weird coincidence?   Date: 04 Jun 2008 03:52:28 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice I'll just address one of your points for now. Ed Trice (hereafter called "that buffoon Ed Trice" to distinguish him from any other Ed Trices) definitely lives in Radnor, Pennsylvania. The whois server for gothicchess.com: http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=gothicchess.com&prog_id=godaddy lists his address as 309 Tory Turn, Radnor. Funnily enough, this is also the address of the Colgan family. Brian Colgan is one of the few people who actually exist in the Gothic Chess Federation apart from that buffoon Ed Trice himself, though Colgan is certainly not involved with Gothic Chess full time. Since that buffoon Ed Trice went bankrupt and lost his house in 2004: http://tinyurl.com/49rkog The most likely explanation is that Trice now lives in a bedsit at the home of his friend, Brian Colgan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bobby Fischer's "My 61 Memorable Games" read all about it here: http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html On 4 Jun, 06:05, [email protected] wrote: > > The Wikipedia page shows him as born in PA, but > > Searching around with internet detective and Intelius web site you > find > > Ed Trice in Port Jefferson, NY > Ed Trice in Belle Terre, NY > Ed Trice in Syosset, NY > Ed Trice in Long Beach, NY > Ed Trice in North Wales, PA > Ed Trice in Jamison, PA > Ed Trice in Doylestown, PA > Ed Trice in Hatfield, PA > Ed Trice in Dover, DE > Ed Trice in Rehoboth Beach, DE > Ed Trice in District Heights, MD > Ed Trice in Salisbury, MD > Ed Trice is Denton, MD > > 4 of the addresses correspond to someone 70+ years in age. > 3 of the addresses correspond to someone 50+ years in age. > 6 of the addresses correspond to someone 40+ years in age. > > The Hatfield address was for a 74 year old that died in August of > 2004. I assume that is not the person. > > The Delaware addresses are both for a 40 year old with middle initial > "A". > The USCF ID page that I saw in one of the posts shows that Edward A > Trice lives in Delaware. > So, this must be the person in question. > > The posts on the Chess Ninja page blame someone from PA for making > posts. Again, looks like a case of people jumping to a possible > conclusion.   Date: 03 Jun 2008 22:05:32 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Lots to read. Some things contradict. Tough to sort out. A few things though You can't take anyone to court after you blab about it the way stuff went on here. Legal matters are private matters. Someone wronged you, you have to go through proper channels. The fact that both people ranted about it on the web is grounds to dismiss anything mentioned as evidence. The Wikipedia page shows him as born in PA, but Searching around with internet detective and Intelius web site you find Ed Trice in Port Jefferson, NY Ed Trice in Belle Terre, NY Ed Trice in Syosset, NY Ed Trice in Long Beach, NY Ed Trice in North Wales, PA Ed Trice in Jamison, PA Ed Trice in Doylestown, PA Ed Trice in Hatfield, PA Ed Trice in Dover, DE Ed Trice in Rehoboth Beach, DE Ed Trice in District Heights, MD Ed Trice in Salisbury, MD Ed Trice is Denton, MD 4 of the addresses correspond to someone 70+ years in age. 3 of the addresses correspond to someone 50+ years in age. 6 of the addresses correspond to someone 40+ years in age. The Hatfield address was for a 74 year old that died in August of 2004. I assume that is not the person. The Delaware addresses are both for a 40 year old with middle initial "A". The USCF ID page that I saw in one of the posts shows that Edward A Trice lives in Delaware. So, this must be the person in question. The posts on the Chess Ninja page blame someone from PA for making posts. Again, looks like a case of people jumping to a possible conclusion. Next item. Long long post on the blog about the Fischer match thing. Seems to be from a few years back. Seems some company asked for money and did nothing to make the match happen. Only way to resolve it - can people who contacted Fischer prove it? What would they be willing to stake to back up their claims? Seems a simple way. Do a 3 way call with the Iceland folks. Mitchell, Trice, whoever else. Record it. Turn it into an MP3. Host it. That will answer that. As for the book deal and the 6 month scam for $6000. Seems like a contract is needed. Email is not a contract. Also, saw somewhere Labate said 'No thanks.' End of story. Declining a deal is no way to claim 'foul' once you are out. Did a whole Intelius search on Labate too. Seems he won some sort of huge law suit from years back. Was a hell of a lot more than $30,000. Had an extra zero on it. Don't have all the detail, don't care for them. I saw the scan of the docket. So what's the docket number for the thing with Trice? No docket means no case and all the rest is just a bunch of hot air. V. Rosen On 31 May, 12:32, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > 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 Labatehttp://www.gothicchess.com/labate.html > > Labate Chess > re: Ed Tricehttp://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, 2008http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8175/431 > > US Chess Federation > My 61 Memorable Games: A Hoax > by GM Larry Evans > April 10, 2008http://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 Bookhttp://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/12/fischer_book_for_real.htm > > Fischer's My 61 Memorable Games > Google Groupshttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_thread... > > Positions are declared, reputations are staked and a 10-count libel > lawsuit is filed ... > > The Gothic Chess Forum > re: Ed Labate > page 1http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?s=779ceae97b... > page 2http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?s=71c84948aa...   Date: 03 Jun 2008 09:03:45 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Phil - you seem to be a bit confused here. The link I posted: http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/2007/07/meeting-bobby-fischer-in-iceland-one.html is in Ed Trice's own Gothic Chess blog, it has got nothing whatsoever to do with Sam Sloan. If I have mis-understood you where you wrote "Sloan's public suppositions by these public writings" and this means something other than you think Sam Sloan wrote this blog, then please forgive me. It is Ed Trice who decided that the non-disclosure agreement was no longer in force (because a year had passed since the contracts needed to be signed by both parties) and started to write his own account of what happened when he tried to organise the Karpov vs Fischer Gothic Chess match. He seems to have got bored before he reached the end and he hasn't updated it in months. Now, Chess Masterminds may well be a film production company, but it seams to me that Trice wanted to use them to obtain the agreement of both Karpov of Fischer in the match (paragraph 8 in that draft contract), and that was what he was willing to pay them $35,000 for. He claims in his blog that Rob Mitchell said that he been in contact with Karpov and had secured his agreement, but that this turned out not to be true. That is why there is a claim that Rob Mitchell tried to scam Ed Trice for $35,000 - because he asked for payment for a job he claimed to have done, but in reality hadn't. Of course, this is just Trice's version of events. You've mentioned that "things are a bit more complicated than Cops & Robbers" a couple of times now. Whilst this may be true, I think it is pretty obvious that some people you come across are closer to the Good Guys, and some closer to the Bad Guys. Ed Trice's attempts to scam Edward Labate out of $6000 for the non-existent "My 61 Memorable Games" book places him very firmly in the Bad Guys camp. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bobby Fischer's "My 61 Memorable Games" read all about it here:http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html On 3 Jun, 16:28, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:86a11041-b840-46d0-a474-0e804baa58d8@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > What Sam Sloan is referring to is Trice's long story of how he tried > > to set up his Karpov vs Fischer Gothic Chess match: > >http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/2007/07/meeting-bobby-fischer-in-icel... > > (search for "masterminds" to get to the start of the bit which > > mentions Rob Mitchell). > > This seems to clearly state that Trice believed Chess Masterminds (= > > Rob Mitchell) tried to extract $35,000 from him by saying that they > > had contacted both Karpov and Fischer and had convinced them to > > participate in the match, however you should bear in mind that this is > > written by Ed Trice, and hence highly unlikely to be the whole truth. > > I believe there is an agreement, and it is covered by a non-disclosure > agreement, signed by both parties. > > ChessMasterminds [CM] does not equal Rob Mitchell, although he may play have > played a part in it. It is not my understanding that CM contacted Ed, but > the other way around - so I am not sure what sense 'extract' obtains in the > above para. But since CM is a film production entity, to 'extract' $35,000 > for a Fischer match is absurd! Perhaps Mr. Sloan never inquired the cost of > a prime-time production? Or he thinks the film would last about 10 minutes - > even high-end titles and graphics in HD can cost that much. > > Anyway - I rather feel as though Sam Sloan thinks Fischer is 'his', or his > to protect. Whereas the truth is that Saemi P was more than adequate > protection for RJF - an RJF who is not at all naive about his media worth. > > --- > > /I/ contacted both Fischer [in Iceland] and Karpov [who was in Moscow at the > time]. I also contacted other players - but that's my business! > > To my knowledge, Rob Mitchell did not contact either player, ever. Sam Sloan > persists in suggesting that he did, and also by quoting what looks like > priveleged information under the confidentiality agreement - information > from a draft which was incidentally not signed by both parties, a draft > numbered 3. > > But there were 4 drafts! > > --- > > Neither has Sam Sloan said what he objects to about the proposed deal for > any amount of money - that is to say, what exactly CM would need to perform > to obtain it, and why in the Sloan's opinion it is wrongo, sooo wrongo! > > I have told Sloan this before, not just twice before [!] and of course he > completely ignores it, preferring to villify Rob Mitchell for something he > never did, never proposed to do, or was contracted for! > > So what's new with the latest Sloan alarums? > > I am not subject to that confidentiality agreement, and though I can fault > Sloan's public suppositions by these public writings - I don't see why I > should present anything else to him at all. He can't even state his own > interest in it. > > Now Sloan is re-evaluating his previous lauding of Ed Trice, and finding a > new villain in him - compounding sins and things of worth all together. In > the grown-up world, things are a bit more complicated than Cops & Robbers, > heroes and villains, who all live in Sloan-City in places quite close to > where Super-Sloan himself has his virtual being. > > Cordially, Phil Innes > > > On 3 Jun, 15:01, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> What can be said outside any non-disclosure agreement, is that Ed did try > >> to > >> get Fischer into a match - but what Sloan accuses Rob of doing is really > >> nonsense - he should accuse me instead. Because I also talked directly to > >> Fischer and his buddy-guard Saemi. This was the last big attempt to get > >> Fischer back into any sort of chess.[at least 5 other people know about > >> this, 2 in this ng, and nobody writes about it, since it is confidential > >> arrangement necessary for such things to occur.] > > >> Sam Sloan might desist from his instant judgements of people, since at > >> least > >> objectively, it is only as right as the proverbial clock. > > >> Phil Innes > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Bobby Fischer's "My 61 Memorable Games" > > read all about it here:http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html     Date: 03 Jun 2008 14:04:15 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice <[email protected] > wrote in message news:a219b48a-badc-4092-af27-44393261d7e4@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > Phil - you seem to be a bit confused here. The link I posted: > http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/2007/07/meeting-bobby-fischer-in-iceland-one.html > is in Ed Trice's own Gothic Chess blog, it has got nothing whatsoever > to do with Sam Sloan. Yeah, I know. Sloan is reporting from that site. > If I have mis-understood you where you wrote > "Sloan's public suppositions by these public writings" and this means > something other than you think Sam Sloan wrote this blog, then please > forgive me. What he has read is as I have said - I have no idea why it is put up at the site, but what Sloan then makes of this unsigned draft agreement which is besides within an confidentiality agreement is up to him. As to making resolutions about people from that - then my point is that Sam Sloan consistently ignores all I have said about it. > It is Ed Trice who decided that the non-disclosure agreement was no > longer in force (because a year had passed since the contracts needed > to be signed by both parties) and started to write his own account of > what happened when he tried to organise the Karpov vs Fischer Gothic > Chess match. He seems to have got bored before he reached the end and > he hasn't updated it in months. > > Now, Chess Masterminds may well be a film production company, but it > seams to me that Trice wanted to use them to obtain the agreement of > both Karpov of Fischer in the match (paragraph 8 in that draft > contract), and that was what he was willing to pay them $35,000 for. > He claims in his blog that Rob Mitchell said that he been in contact > with Karpov and had secured his agreement, but that this turned out > not to be true. So? What I wrote in the previous message is true. Who knows what Ed thinks is true? > That is why there is a claim that Rob Mitchell tried > to scam Ed Trice for $35,000 - because he asked for payment for a job > he claimed to have done, but in reality hadn't. Of course, this is > just Trice's version of events. <shrug > Sure. It is Ed's version of events. > You've mentioned that "things are a bit more complicated than Cops & > Robbers" a couple of times now. Whilst this may be true, I think it is > pretty obvious that some people you come across are closer to the Good > Guys, and some closer to the Bad Guys. Ed Trice's attempts to scam > Edward Labate out of $6000 for the non-existent "My 61 Memorable > Games" book places him very firmly in the Bad Guys camp. That may also be true, but I have no knowledge from any party if it is or not. I restrict myself to what I wrote previously on what I know is true or not. Cordially, Phil > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Bobby Fischer's "My 61 Memorable Games" > read all about it here:http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html > > > > On 3 Jun, 16:28, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >> news:86a11041-b840-46d0-a474-0e804baa58d8@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > What Sam Sloan is referring to is Trice's long story of how he tried >> > to set up his Karpov vs Fischer Gothic Chess match: >> >http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/2007/07/meeting-bobby-fischer-in-icel... >> > (search for "masterminds" to get to the start of the bit which >> > mentions Rob Mitchell). >> > This seems to clearly state that Trice believed Chess Masterminds (= >> > Rob Mitchell) tried to extract $35,000 from him by saying that they >> > had contacted both Karpov and Fischer and had convinced them to >> > participate in the match, however you should bear in mind that this is >> > written by Ed Trice, and hence highly unlikely to be the whole truth. >> >> I believe there is an agreement, and it is covered by a non-disclosure >> agreement, signed by both parties. >> >> ChessMasterminds [CM] does not equal Rob Mitchell, although he may play >> have >> played a part in it. It is not my understanding that CM contacted Ed, but >> the other way around - so I am not sure what sense 'extract' obtains in >> the >> above para. But since CM is a film production entity, to 'extract' >> $35,000 >> for a Fischer match is absurd! Perhaps Mr. Sloan never inquired the cost >> of >> a prime-time production? Or he thinks the film would last about 10 >> minutes - >> even high-end titles and graphics in HD can cost that much. >> >> Anyway - I rather feel as though Sam Sloan thinks Fischer is 'his', or >> his >> to protect. Whereas the truth is that Saemi P was more than adequate >> protection for RJF - an RJF who is not at all naive about his media >> worth. >> >> --- >> >> /I/ contacted both Fischer [in Iceland] and Karpov [who was in Moscow at >> the >> time]. I also contacted other players - but that's my business! >> >> To my knowledge, Rob Mitchell did not contact either player, ever. Sam >> Sloan >> persists in suggesting that he did, and also by quoting what looks like >> priveleged information under the confidentiality agreement - information >> from a draft which was incidentally not signed by both parties, a draft >> numbered 3. >> >> But there were 4 drafts! >> >> --- >> >> Neither has Sam Sloan said what he objects to about the proposed deal for >> any amount of money - that is to say, what exactly CM would need to >> perform >> to obtain it, and why in the Sloan's opinion it is wrongo, sooo wrongo! >> >> I have told Sloan this before, not just twice before [!] and of course he >> completely ignores it, preferring to villify Rob Mitchell for something >> he >> never did, never proposed to do, or was contracted for! >> >> So what's new with the latest Sloan alarums? >> >> I am not subject to that confidentiality agreement, and though I can >> fault >> Sloan's public suppositions by these public writings - I don't see why I >> should present anything else to him at all. He can't even state his own >> interest in it. >> >> Now Sloan is re-evaluating his previous lauding of Ed Trice, and finding >> a >> new villain in him - compounding sins and things of worth all together. >> In >> the grown-up world, things are a bit more complicated than Cops & >> Robbers, >> heroes and villains, who all live in Sloan-City in places quite close to >> where Super-Sloan himself has his virtual being. >> >> Cordially, Phil Innes >> >> > On 3 Jun, 15:01, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> What can be said outside any non-disclosure agreement, is that Ed did >> >> try >> >> to >> >> get Fischer into a match - but what Sloan accuses Rob of doing is >> >> really >> >> nonsense - he should accuse me instead. Because I also talked directly >> >> to >> >> Fischer and his buddy-guard Saemi. This was the last big attempt to >> >> get >> >> Fischer back into any sort of chess.[at least 5 other people know >> >> about >> >> this, 2 in this ng, and nobody writes about it, since it is >> >> confidential >> >> arrangement necessary for such things to occur.] >> >> >> Sam Sloan might desist from his instant judgements of people, since at >> >> least >> >> objectively, it is only as right as the proverbial clock. >> >> >> Phil Innes >> >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Bobby Fischer's "My 61 Memorable Games" >> > read all about it here:http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html >   Date: 03 Jun 2008 07:29:03 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice What Sam Sloan is referring to is Trice's long story of how he tried to set up his Karpov vs Fischer Gothic Chess match: http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/2007/07/meeting-bobby-fischer-in-iceland-one.html (search for "masterminds" to get to the start of the bit which mentions Rob Mitchell). This seems to clearly state that Trice believed Chess Masterminds (= Rob Mitchell) tried to extract $35,000 from him by saying that they had contacted both Karpov and Fischer and had convinced them to participate in the match, however you should bear in mind that this is written by Ed Trice, and hence highly unlikely to be the whole truth. On 3 Jun, 15:01, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > What can be said outside any non-disclosure agreement, is that Ed did try to > get Fischer into a match - but what Sloan accuses Rob of doing is really > nonsense - he should accuse me instead. Because I also talked directly to > Fischer and his buddy-guard Saemi. This was the last big attempt to get > Fischer back into any sort of chess.[at least 5 other people know about > this, 2 in this ng, and nobody writes about it, since it is confidential > arrangement necessary for such things to occur.] > > Sam Sloan might desist from his instant judgements of people, since at least > objectively, it is only as right as the proverbial clock. > > Phil Innes > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bobby Fischer's "My 61 Memorable Games" read all about it here: http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html     Date: 03 Jun 2008 11:28:20 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice <[email protected] > wrote in message news:86a11041-b840-46d0-a474-0e804baa58d8@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > What Sam Sloan is referring to is Trice's long story of how he tried > to set up his Karpov vs Fischer Gothic Chess match: > http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/2007/07/meeting-bobby-fischer-in-iceland-one.html > (search for "masterminds" to get to the start of the bit which > mentions Rob Mitchell). > This seems to clearly state that Trice believed Chess Masterminds (= > Rob Mitchell) tried to extract $35,000 from him by saying that they > had contacted both Karpov and Fischer and had convinced them to > participate in the match, however you should bear in mind that this is > written by Ed Trice, and hence highly unlikely to be the whole truth. I believe there is an agreement, and it is covered by a non-disclosure agreement, signed by both parties. ChessMasterminds [CM] does not equal Rob Mitchell, although he may play have played a part in it. It is not my understanding that CM contacted Ed, but the other way around - so I am not sure what sense 'extract' obtains in the above para. But since CM is a film production entity, to 'extract' $35,000 for a Fischer match is absurd! Perhaps Mr. Sloan never inquired the cost of a prime-time production? Or he thinks the film would last about 10 minutes - even high-end titles and graphics in HD can cost that much. Anyway - I rather feel as though Sam Sloan thinks Fischer is 'his', or his to protect. Whereas the truth is that Saemi P was more than adequate protection for RJF - an RJF who is not at all naive about his media worth. --- /I/ contacted both Fischer [in Iceland] and Karpov [who was in Moscow at the time]. I also contacted other players - but that's my business! To my knowledge, Rob Mitchell did not contact either player, ever. Sam Sloan persists in suggesting that he did, and also by quoting what looks like priveleged information under the confidentiality agreement - information from a draft which was incidentally not signed by both parties, a draft numbered 3. But there were 4 drafts! --- Neither has Sam Sloan said what he objects to about the proposed deal for any amount of money - that is to say, what exactly CM would need to perform to obtain it, and why in the Sloan's opinion it is wrongo, sooo wrongo! I have told Sloan this before, not just twice before [!] and of course he completely ignores it, preferring to villify Rob Mitchell for something he never did, never proposed to do, or was contracted for! So what's new with the latest Sloan alarums? I am not subject to that confidentiality agreement, and though I can fault Sloan's public suppositions by these public writings - I don't see why I should present anything else to him at all. He can't even state his own interest in it. Now Sloan is re-evaluating his previous lauding of Ed Trice, and finding a new villain in him - compounding sins and things of worth all together. In the grown-up world, things are a bit more complicated than Cops & Robbers, heroes and villains, who all live in Sloan-City in places quite close to where Super-Sloan himself has his virtual being. Cordially, Phil Innes > On 3 Jun, 15:01, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> What can be said outside any non-disclosure agreement, is that Ed did try >> to >> get Fischer into a match - but what Sloan accuses Rob of doing is really >> nonsense - he should accuse me instead. Because I also talked directly to >> Fischer and his buddy-guard Saemi. This was the last big attempt to get >> Fischer back into any sort of chess.[at least 5 other people know about >> this, 2 in this ng, and nobody writes about it, since it is confidential >> arrangement necessary for such things to occur.] >> >> Sam Sloan might desist from his instant judgements of people, since at >> least >> objectively, it is only as right as the proverbial clock. >> >> Phil Innes >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Bobby Fischer's "My 61 Memorable Games" > read all about it here: http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html   Date: 02 Jun 2008 14:56:52 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 2, 5:42 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > Believe Mr. Labate Interesting point: It is primarily because of Ed Trice that Rob "The Robber" Mitchell got his moniker "The Robber". So, as it becomes increasingly clear that Ed Trice was behind the "My 61 Memorable Games Hoax", one must consider the possibility, however unlikely as it may seem, that Rob Mitchell really did not try to swindle Ed Trice out of $35,000. Also, it was Ed Trice who claimed that he had written a computer program that had solved the game of checkers. This turns out not to be true either. So, we must look back and re-evaluate all the claims that Ed Trice has been making. Sam Sloan     Date: 03 Jun 2008 10:01:52 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:fd43e8d2-731c-41c1-b6a7-e2aebac250fb@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 5:42 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Believe Mr. Labate > > Interesting point: It is primarily because of Ed Trice that Rob "The > Robber" Mitchell got his moniker "The Robber". Sam Sloan's sly repetition neglects to mention that he is the only person to ever use that term. Regular people for example call Rob, 'Lex' ;) What Sam Sloan knows about anyone's business relationships is unknown - especially since /I/ know much of the detail of what went on, and I know there were non-disclosure agreements. Therefore, what does the Sloan know, and from whom? ;) > So, as it becomes increasingly clear that Ed Trice was behind the "My > 61 Memorable Games Hoax", one must consider the possibility, however > unlikely as it may seem, that Rob Mitchell really did not try to > swindle Ed Trice out of $35,000. > > Also, it was Ed Trice who claimed that he had written a computer > program that had solved the game of checkers. This turns out not to be > true either. > > So, we must look back and re-evaluate all the claims that Ed Trice has > been making. I know what's true and what ain't. What can be said outside any non-disclosure agreement, is that Ed did try to get Fischer into a match - but what Sloan accuses Rob of doing is really nonsense - he should accuse me instead. Because I also talked directly to Fischer and his buddy-guard Saemi. This was the last big attempt to get Fischer back into any sort of chess.[at least 5 other people know about this, 2 in this ng, and nobody writes about it, since it is confidential arrangement necessary for such things to occur.] Sam Sloan might desist from his instant judgements of people, since at least objectively, it is only as right as the proverbial clock. He might also progress from the world of comic book appelations of completely good and bad people, all heroic or all villainy, and try to take in some grown-up perspectives. Phil Innes I cut the [un]usual newsgroups. > Sam Sloan >   Date: 02 Jun 2008 14:42:26 From: Rob Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Jun 2, 6:48=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > Here is a message that Trice posted on chessgames.com just before the > eBay auction for "My 61 Memorable Games" in December 2007: > > "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." > > This doesn't really gel with what Trice now claims his involvement > was, does it? > > On 31 May, 17:32, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 Labatehttp://www.gothicchess.com/labate.html > > > Labate Chess > > re: Ed Tricehttp://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, 2008http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8175/431 > > > US Chess Federation > > My 61 Memorable Games: A Hoax > > by GM Larry Evans > > April 10, 2008http://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 Bookhttp://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/12/fischer_book_for= _real.htm > > > Fischer's My 61 Memorable Games > > Google Groupshttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/bro= wse_thread... > > > Positions are declared, reputations are staked and a 10-count libel > > lawsuit is filed ... > > > The Gothic Chess Forum > > re: Ed Labate > > page 1http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?s=3D779ce= ae97b... > > page 2http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?s=3D71c84= 948aa...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Believe Mr. Labate   Date: 02 Jun 2008 04:48:31 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Here is a message that Trice posted on chessgames.com just before the eBay auction for "My 61 Memorable Games" in December 2007: "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." This doesn't really gel with what Trice now claims his involvement was, does it? On 31 May, 17:32, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > 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 Labatehttp://www.gothicchess.com/labate.html > > Labate Chess > re: Ed Tricehttp://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, 2008http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8175/431 > > US Chess Federation > My 61 Memorable Games: A Hoax > by GM Larry Evans > April 10, 2008http://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 Bookhttp://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/12/fischer_book_for_real.htm > > Fischer's My 61 Memorable Games > Google Groupshttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_thread... > > Positions are declared, reputations are staked and a 10-count libel > lawsuit is filed ... > > The Gothic Chess Forum > re: Ed Labate > page 1http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?s=779ceae97b... > page 2http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?s=71c84948aa...   Date: 01 Jun 2008 02:54:20 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Mike Murray wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:08:42 -0700 (PDT), Edward Labate > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.html > > > Ed, is this the same guy who has a variation of the Sicilian named > after him, and a variation in the Blackmar-Diemer gambit? I didn't know about the Blackmar-Diemer variation, but yes, it's the same Robert Snyder.   Date: 01 Jun 2008 02:30:27 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice Ed Trice was born on 5th December 1966 and is hence 41 years old. Far too old to change his ways - I should know as I am just a few days older than Trice! Can you give any examples of people making an inglorious entry into the chess world but then changing their ways and doing something worthwhile and becoming respected by their peers? I can think of a few who have got into fist fights, but that is a sign of hot-headedness rather than the inherent evil mind that is needed to attempt fraud on fellow chess players. On Jun 1, 8:58 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > > It often happens that people enter our world of > chess, play some egregiously stupid games involving > either semi-fraud or worse -- and then later settle > down and become productive chess citizens. > > How old is Mr. Trice? > > > 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 > > Hoax > >http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.htmlRE: 'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed Trice/ > > Gothic Chess > >http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlmRE: Convicted Felon/ > > Pedophile, Robert Snyder   Date: 01 Jun 2008 00:58:59 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice LABATE VS. TRICE Ed Labate may have truth and justice on his side, but what happens in court is another question. Still, based on what I have read (and I've not seen every reference devoted to the case), it a appears that Ed Trice is in trouble. I hope that Ed Labate will show some charity and settle for a modest cash amount plus an airtight, public admission from Mr. Trice of guilt. This latter has to be very direct and, in fact, an unconditional declaration of surrender. It often happens that people enter our world of chess, play some egregiously stupid games involving either semi-fraud or worse -- and then later settle down and become productive chess citizens. How old is Mr. Trice? Yours, Larry Parr Edward Labate wrote: > <Ed Labate has been involved in chess both as a book seller and as a > tournament organizer for at least 40 years.> > > Sam, I'm 53 years old...I've been selling chess books since 1979, and > running tournaments since 1981,i.e. 24 years old and 26 years old, not > at 13 years old! > > <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.> > > Sam, I've emailed you on this before, and yet you persist and > misstating what happened: The USCF suspended my affiliation without > due process, i.e., notice. This was the famous "We received your > money. However, your flag fell!' Gerry Dullea witticism. The USCF > refuse to reinstate me, even though I know had a ZERO balance, thereby > destroying my business. My business was based on foot traffic. Yes, > they paid me to settle out of court $30,000.00, 13 months later!! > Well, the damage was done. I won the battle and lost the war. My > business never recovered and in 1990 I closed down my chess center and > starting selling vintage sportscards. > > Best Wishes! > > Edward Labate > National Chess Master > P.O. Box 1404 > Athens,AL. 35612 > > 256.829.2298 / LEAVE MESSAGE > OUTSIDE OF ALABAMA, > TOLL FREE 877.336.7021 / LEAVE MESSAGE > > [email protected] > > P.S. newest website listings > http://www.labatechess.com/store/ > > http://www.amazon.com/shops/labatechess > > 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 > Hoax > http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html RE: 'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed Trice/ > Gothic Chess > http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlm RE: Convicted Felon/ > Pedophile, Robert Snyder   Date: 31 May 2008 12:08:42 From: Edward Labate Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice <Ed Labate has been involved in chess both as a book seller and as a tournament organizer for at least 40 years. > Sam, I'm 53 years old...I've been selling chess books since 1979, and running tournaments since 1981,i.e. 24 years old and 26 years old, not at 13 years old! <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. > Sam, I've emailed you on this before, and yet you persist and misstating what happened: The USCF suspended my affiliation without due process, i.e., notice. This was the famous "We received your money. However, your flag fell!' Gerry Dullea witticism. The USCF refuse to reinstate me, even though I know had a ZERO balance, thereby destroying my business. My business was based on foot traffic. Yes, they paid me to settle out of court $30,000.00, 13 months later!! Well, the damage was done. I won the battle and lost the war. My business never recovered and in 1990 I closed down my chess center and starting selling vintage sportscards. Best Wishes! Edward Labate National Chess Master P.O. Box 1404 Athens,AL. 35612 256.829.2298 / LEAVE MESSAGE OUTSIDE OF ALABAMA, TOLL FREE 877.336.7021 / LEAVE MESSAGE [email protected] P.S. newest website listings http://www.labatechess.com/store/ http://www.amazon.com/shops/labatechess 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 Hoax http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html RE: 'PHILLY PHRAUD', Ed Trice/ Gothic Chess http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.htmlm RE: Convicted Felon/ Pedophile, Robert Snyder     Date: 31 May 2008 21:38:22 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:08:42 -0700 (PDT), Edward Labate <[email protected] > wrote: >http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.html Ed, is this the same guy who has a variation of the Sicilian named after him, and a variation in the Blackmar-Diemer gambit?   Date: 31 May 2008 10:54:02 From: Subject: Re: Ed Labate vs. Ed Trice From the Gothic Chess Forum http://z13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php?s=779ceae97b... We have Trice saying "You see, I am not married, nor have I ever been" And yet back in 2003 on www.gothicchess.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20040423184606/gothicchess.org/ic_2003_04.html the "Gothic Chess Patriarch" quoth: "I was there with my wife Ellie" (I love the WayBack Machine! - www.archive.org) This is just example where Trice has been caught out lying. The most hilarious examples can be found when he talks about the Gothic Chess tournaments he held which attracted 4000 or more participants! http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=54078&page=5 Would you buy a chunk of Mars from this man? www.legallyownlandonmars.com Ed Trice. A man who retired at 32 and owns three homes with no mortgage on any of them: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=317580&page=3 And yet was forced into bankrupcy in 2004: http://tinyurl.com/49rkog I am one of many people who Trice has crossed over the years. He is the sort of man who can start an argument (and initiate a scam) in an empty room.