| |
Main
Date: 20 May 2008 01:51:34
From: samsloan
Subject: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
Dr. Frank Brady, who is Chairman of the Department of Mass
Communications, Journalism, Television and Film at St. John's
University, New York and is Professor of Communication Arts and
Journalism at that university, as well as being the founding editor of
Chess Life magazine, has expressed opposition to the plan to put Chess
Life online as follows:
Colleagues:
As the founding Editor of Chess Life, and as someone who has been in
the magazine business for a number of years, I can say the following:
The reason that some magazines and newspapers are switching from print
to on-line versions is because of a lack of advertising (due to the
poor economy). Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times,
told me personally that he was "message agnostic" and that he didn't
care whether there would be a hard copy of the Times or whether it
would eventually be delivered totally online. However, the online
version has yet to make money...and the Times is hurting financially.
Since Chess Life is not an advertising-driven medium (although it has
some ads), it should be looked at from its promotional and "pride"
value.
If I were still on the USCF Board I would definitely vote against
turning Chess Life into an online publication. And for what it is
worth, I have both an online and a home-delivery subscription to The
New York Times, and I rarely ever read the on-line version. I might
also point out that many marketers are giving up on e-mail and online
approaches because it's just not working. They are reverting to the
old tried and true direct mail efforts.
Dr. Frank Brady, President
Marshall Chess Club
|
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2008 08:23:56
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 29, 10:09 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> The language is so vast, John, that the 100 most used words in
> >>> English are still all 'old English', which is to say, they are
> >>> Anglo Saxon words.
>
> >> Not true. As I recall from my reading of Melvyn Bragg's _The
> >> Adventure of English_, the most commonly-used word in English that
> >> is of French origin is `number' which is, I think, the 79th most
> >> common word (and certainly in the top hundred) according to the
> >> statistics he quotes. I can't remember if he said that there were
> >> any other words of non--Anglo-Saxon derivation in the top hundred.
>
> > Putting aside the impossibility of it being French [though it is
> > adopted into O. Fr. and from Gr. nemo; to distribute]
>
> Please do tell the OED about this impossibility.
>
> > Ah well, Mr, Bragg brags against leading philologists.
>
> Cite?
>
> > There are 2 words post A. Sax which are A. N., the noun NOMBRE, and
> > the verb Nommer, both with meaning 'number'.
>
> > The troubles with our Melvyn [once hilariously described as being
> > "the thinking woman's crumpet"] is that he doesn't source his
> > comment
>
> Would you care to source your rebuttal of his comments? I realise
> that `You can't demonstrate that he's wrong' doesn't mean that he's
> right but I find it thoroughly laughable that you, of all people,
> should complain that Bragg doesn't cite his sources. (In fact, I do
> not recall the extent to which Bragg cites sources; it's a while since
> I read the book.)
>
> By the way, here's a URL giving a list of the 100 most common English
> words, with citation. `Number' is 76th in this list; `people', also
> derived from Norman French is 80th.
>
> http://www.duboislc.org/EducationWatch/First100Words.html
>
> (Wow! `America' is 199th, ahead of `world' (200), `food' (205) and
> `life' (241).)
>
> > and neither does he explain, for example:-
>
> > Aftur thys the day wan nomyn,
> > That the batelle on schulde comyn.
>
> > //MS Cantab Ff ii 38 f.93
>
> That's Middle English, Phil. So it's hardly surprising that a word
> derived from the French should appear.
>
> >>> Churchill's 'on the beaches' speach is entirely composed of A. Sax
> >>> words, saving the last one, 'surrender', which is O. Fr.
>
> >> No. The famous paragraph of the speech does indeed consist
> >> entirely of words *derived* from the Anglo-Saxon, apart from
> >> `surrender', which is indeed *derived* from the French. But there
> >> is a world of difference between `Anglo-Saxon' and `derived from
> >> Anglo-Saxon.'
>
> > Is there indeed? So what is that 'world' difference that you cannot
> > state?
>
> *boggle* Well, `Anglo-Saxon' means `Anglo-Saxon' and `derived from
> Anglo-Saxon' means that the original source was Anglo-Saxon but the
> word has been modified and adapted since then. `Fight' comes from the
> Old English `feohtan' but is clearly not the same thing.
>
> > After all, anyone can make sense of most of this, no? :-
>
> > Aftur thys the day wan nomyn,
> > That the batelle on schulde comyn
>
> > I do hope you have something more than spelling! Every word there is
> > quite intelligible to modern English readers, is you accept or
> > deduce wan means were, as in, 'the days were numbered', and the
> > unusual to us formation of 'on schulde comyn' rather than 'should
> > come on'
>
> Yes, much Middle English is just a funny spelling of modern English.
> But Beowulf was not written in Middle English -- it predates Middle
> English by up to three hundred years.
>
>
>
> >>> People may be baffled by Beowulf only by its received spelling, yet
> >>> phonically might hear and understand most of it.
>
> >> Er... no. Not even slightly. According to [1], the Saxon text of
> >> _Beowulf_ starts:
>
> >> Hwaet! We Gardena in geardagum,
> >> theodcyninga, thrym gefrunon
> >> hu tha aethelingas ellen fremedon.
> >> Oft Scyld Scefing sceathana threatum...
>
> >> (I've replaced both eth and thorn with `th'.) Perhaps I'm
> >> particularly dense but I'd never have guessed the translation
>
> > Perhaps you need to be a descendent of East-Saxon Wash? Even in 900
> > there was hardly any understanding of West Saxon to Danelaw. What we
> > don't know at all is how anything was pronounced. Even so - this is
> > admittedly a difficult example. But will my citation not do?
>
> `Admittedly a difficult example'?!? You claimed, quoted above, that
> the only difficulty that a modern reader would have with Beowulf is
> the arcane spelling. This is total, utter nonsense.
>
> >>> It is also the case that the syntax of the noted Celto-Saxon
> >>> atavist Prof. Tolkein proved to be not only comprehensible, but by
> >>> the vast popularity of his works, most enjoyable too!
>
> >> Tolkien (note spelling) wrote in modern English. That's why you
> >> can understand it, see.
>
> > He spelled like we do?
>
> Er, yes.
>
> http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/images/Tolkien-page-Bodleian.jpg
>
> Hard to read, I grant, since the handwriting's awful. But the
> spelling is clearly modern.
>
> > Did you know he was a big critic of Shakespeare for combining
> > Norman, Saxon and Latinate terms together, and coining on them, when
> > it was not at all necessary to do so? [...]
>
> > Evidently one can use bastard forms of English, Latin ones,
> > Dane/Icelandic ones, or a form of Viking that settlers in France
> > utilised after they got bored extorting Paris and settled down and
> > integrated into Normandy, or Saxon/Celt. This latter is what Tolkien
> > wrote, and it is also our predominant choice!
>
> *boggle* If you believe that either of us is speaking and writing
> `Saxon/Celt', you are utterly deluded.
>
> Dave.
Dave, it's like talking to a Cornish wall. There have been extended
threads with P Innes in HLAS trying to educate the poor tosser about
language. I doubt you will have better luck.
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2008 06:46:39
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 27, 8:12 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On May 26, 1:47 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > The language is so vast, John, that the 100 most used words in
> > > English are still all 'old English', which is to say, they are Anglo
> > > Saxon words.
>
> > Not true. As I recall from my reading of Melvyn Bragg's _The
> > Adventure of English_, the most commonly-used word in English that is
> > of French origin is `number' which is, I think, the 79th most common
> > word (and certainly in the top hundred) according to the statistics he
> > quotes. I can't remember if he said that there were any other words
> > of non--Anglo-Saxon derivation in the top hundred.
>
> > > Churchill's 'on the beaches' speach is entirely composed of A. Sax
> > > words, saving the last one, 'surrender', which is O. Fr.
>
> > No. The famous paragraph of the speech does indeed consist entirely
> > of words *derived* from the Anglo-Saxon, apart from `surrender', which
> > is indeed *derived* from the French. But there is a world of
> > difference between `Anglo-Saxon' and `derived from Anglo-Saxon.'
>
> > > People may be baffled by Beowulf only by its received spelling, yet
> > > phonically might hear and understand most of it.
>
> > Er... no. Not even slightly. According to [1], the Saxon text of
> > _Beowulf_ starts:
>
> > Hwaet! We Gardena in geardagum,
> > theodcyninga, thrym gefrunon
> > hu tha aethelingas ellen fremedon.
> > Oft Scyld Scefing sceathana threatum...
>
> > (I've replaced both eth and thorn with `th'.) Perhaps I'm
> > particularly dense but I'd never have guessed the translation
>
> > Listen! We of the Spear-Danes in days of yore
> > of those clan-kings heard of their glory.
> > How those nobles performed courageous deeds
> > Often, Scyld, Scef's son, from the enemy hosts...
>
> > [1]http://www.heorot.dk/beowulf-rede-text.html
>
> Perhaps if we heard it in the original Andean ...
>
> > > It is also the case that the syntax of the noted Celto-Saxon atavist
> > > Prof. Tolkein proved to be not only comprehensible, but by the vast
> > > popularity of his works, most enjoyable too!
>
> > Tolkien (note spelling) wrote in modern English. That's why you can
> > understand it, see.
>
> Yes, the main text of his novels was modern English, but he was a
> great linguistic scholar and did use a lot of words either directly
> from, or based upon, ancient Celtic and Old English, for the languages
> of the hobbits and the Rohirrim. Some of the written languages were
> based on Anglo-Saxon runes. On the other hand, the High Elven speech,
> Quenya, was based on Finnish.
So P Innes' 'point' proves exactly the opposite of what he he
intended. Typical.
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2008 06:12:45
From:
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 26, 1:47=A0pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The language is so vast, John, that the 100 most used words in
> > English are still all 'old English', which is to say, they are Anglo
> > Saxon words.
>
> Not true. =A0As I recall from my reading of Melvyn Bragg's _The
> Adventure of English_, the most commonly-used word in English that is
> of French origin is `number' which is, I think, the 79th most common
> word (and certainly in the top hundred) according to the statistics he
> quotes. =A0I can't remember if he said that there were any other words
> of non--Anglo-Saxon derivation in the top hundred.
>
> > Churchill's 'on the beaches' speach is entirely composed of A. Sax
> > words, saving the last one, 'surrender', which is O. Fr.
>
> No. =A0The famous paragraph of the speech does indeed consist entirely
> of words *derived* from the Anglo-Saxon, apart from `surrender', which
> is indeed *derived* from the French. =A0But there is a world of
> difference between `Anglo-Saxon' and `derived from Anglo-Saxon.'
>
> > People may be baffled by Beowulf only by its received spelling, yet
> > phonically might hear and understand most of it.
>
> Er... no. =A0Not even slightly. =A0According to [1], the Saxon text of
> _Beowulf_ starts:
>
> =A0 =A0 Hwaet! =A0We Gardena in geardagum,
> =A0 =A0 theodcyninga, thrym gefrunon
> =A0 =A0 hu tha aethelingas ellen fremedon.
> =A0 =A0 Oft Scyld Scefing sceathana threatum...
>
> (I've replaced both eth and thorn with `th'.) =A0Perhaps I'm
> particularly dense but I'd never have guessed the translation
>
> =A0 =A0 Listen! =A0We of the Spear-Danes in days of yore
> =A0 =A0 of those clan-kings heard of their glory.
> =A0 =A0 How those nobles performed courageous deeds
> =A0 =A0 Often, Scyld, Scef's son, from the enemy hosts...
>
> [1]http://www.heorot.dk/beowulf-rede-text.html
Perhaps if we heard it in the original Andean ...
> > It is also the case that the syntax of the noted Celto-Saxon atavist
> > Prof. Tolkein proved to be not only comprehensible, but by the vast
> > popularity of his works, most enjoyable too!
>
> Tolkien (note spelling) wrote in modern English. =A0That's why you can
> understand it, see.
Yes, the main text of his novels was modern English, but he was a
great linguistic scholar and did use a lot of words either directly
from, or based upon, ancient Celtic and Old English, for the languages
of the hobbits and the Rohirrim. Some of the written languages were
based on Anglo-Saxon runes. On the other hand, the High Elven speech,
Quenya, was based on Finnish.
|
| |
Date: 25 May 2008 07:23:12
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 25, 8:33 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
but simply smears other writers, insults
> their readers, and that is the demonstrated standard of these fools, who
> actually have no public at all.
>
> Neither should they - they don't exactly write as if they even like the
> game.
Look in the mirror, man.
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2008 20:09:47
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 22, 5:33 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Websites are free. Nobody pays to view them.
a) They could put Chess Life on a protected page where you would need
a USCF member password to see it.
b) If the website costs a fraction of what printing costs (and
*editorial* costs are also small) then there would be a net savings to
members, even if anyone could read the site.
If editorial costs are NOT small - as is usually the case with a
quality magazine - the extra overhead of printing the magazine on
paper is indeed still the only way to recover the costs in a practical
manner, both through the sale of the magazine and by advertising.
Even when the printing costs are several times the printing costs.
If the USCF is dying for lack of membership, and there _is_ no way to
fix that - because, while all the standard measures to reach out to
the public are not bringing in enough new members, and it's purely
wishful thinking to suppose it could be otherwise if we just tried
harder - then it may be impossible to avoid all sorts of cutbacks and
paring down, even though these measures may make the problem even
worse.
A smaller organization that can pay its bills can survive, but a
bankrupt one cannot.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 25 May 2008 07:45:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
"Quadibloc" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b9a00e15-0aff-4faa-b8d8-073c45ec745c@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 5:33 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Websites are free. Nobody pays to view them.
>
> a) They could put Chess Life on a protected page where you would need
> a USCF member password to see it.
Which wouldn't encourage potential members
> b) If the website costs a fraction of what printing costs (and
> *editorial* costs are also small) then there would be a net savings to
> members, even if anyone could read the site.
>
> If editorial costs are NOT small - as is usually the case with a
> quality magazine - the extra overhead of printing the magazine on
> paper is indeed still the only way to recover the costs in a practical
> manner, both through the sale of the magazine and by advertising.
The trouble is that there is an assumption here that 'the market' is somehow
homogeneous. The fact is that half the membership is rated less than 1000.
Adult lub players average about 1350-1600. Can you write the same material
for both? And this is not even to address those above 1600 who presumably
are the active tournament players who get CL to look for tournaments!
> Even when the printing costs are several times the printing costs.
>
> If the USCF is dying for lack of membership, and there _is_ no way to
> fix that - because, while all the standard measures to reach out to
> the public are not bringing in enough new members, and it's purely
> wishful thinking to suppose it could be otherwise if we just tried
> harder - then it may be impossible to avoid all sorts of cutbacks and
> paring down, even though these measures may make the problem even
> worse.
The issue of 'membership' and 'chess readers' is quite distinct.
Every week Chessville produces about 5 times as much chess material as CL
does per month. It addresses every level of play, and is timely. CL can't
compete with that.
OTOH, if 'membership organization' is insisted upon, then as someone has
said, its essential to put a piece of paper into the members hands on a
frequent basis.
Thereby print magazines for chess have two main problems: One is to write to
a distinct market segment, and the other to do something e-zine's cannot,
which is provide useful chess information to people that can be used away
from the computer.
One option for CL is to become a quarterly, perfect bound [at least a marked
spine], well-indexed record of the preceeding quarter's chess activity, and
to address specific markets.
It also needs to select which market segments it intends to address in each
of its variantss - since essentially those players below 1350 are still
learners, and those above that rating level require deeper analysis suitable
for tournament play, not just glosses.
What are we to make of the adult membership anyway?
Half of themn play no rated games.
Half of those who do play, don't achieve more than a provisional rating.
Which leaves just 7,500 adult members playing more than 10 games per year.
We must presume that those who 'sign up just for the magazine' are therefore
not principally interested int he depth of its chessic analysis, and
therefore might be surveyed for what they do want to read.
There are a variety of strategies for engaging both e-zines and print-zines.
There is a paucity of experience, imagination and will, to actually do so.
In terms of a print vehicle, there is even the cooperative model idea of
working with other chess publishers to produce the best articles from their
e-publishing - representing the quarter-year in question.
If Dr. Brady has made objection to acting on insufficient research in reader
habits and preferences - good for him! If he has objected to an
insufficiently strategised business lurch by Mr. Goichberg and Friends, even
better for him!
Phil Innes
> A smaller organization that can pay its bills can survive, but a
> bankrupt one cannot.
>
> John Savard
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2008 20:00:12
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 21, 3:01 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> on language you are capable of writing 'Old English Is Dead'
> requiring 4 words of 'Old English' to say so.
Lots of people can read the sentence "Old English is Dead" who would
be baffled by a copy of Beowulf.
Creative definitions such as yours of the word "dead" are helping to
kill Modern English, although at least *that* hasn't happened yet,
fortunately!
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 25 May 2008 07:20:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
"Quadibloc" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ef5be7d6-8c35-49b5-9ec9-52977af933de@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On May 21, 3:01 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> on language you are capable of writing 'Old English Is Dead'
>> requiring 4 words of 'Old English' to say so.
>
> Lots of people can read the sentence "Old English is Dead" who would
> be baffled by a copy of Beowulf.
>
> Creative definitions such as yours of the word "dead" are helping to
> kill Modern English, although at least *that* hasn't happened yet,
> fortunately!
The language is so vast, John, that the 100 most used words in English are
still all 'old English', which is to say, they are Anglo Saxon words.
Churchill's 'on the beaches' speach is entirely composed of A. Sax words,
saving the last one, 'surrender', which is O. Fr.
People may be baffled by Beowulf only by its received spelling, yet
phonically might hear and understand most of it. Seamus Heaney's rendition
wasn't too hard on the ear.
It is also the case that the syntax of the noted Celto-Saxon atavist Prof.
Tolkein proved to be not only comprehensible, but by the vast popularity of
his works, most enjoyable too!
Phil Innes
> John Savard
|
| | | |
Date: 26 May 2008 18:47:13
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
Chess One <[email protected] > wrote:
> The language is so vast, John, that the 100 most used words in
> English are still all 'old English', which is to say, they are Anglo
> Saxon words.
Not true. As I recall from my reading of Melvyn Bragg's _The
Adventure of English_, the most commonly-used word in English that is
of French origin is `number' which is, I think, the 79th most common
word (and certainly in the top hundred) according to the statistics he
quotes. I can't remember if he said that there were any other words
of non--Anglo-Saxon derivation in the top hundred.
> Churchill's 'on the beaches' speach is entirely composed of A. Sax
> words, saving the last one, 'surrender', which is O. Fr.
No. The famous paragraph of the speech does indeed consist entirely
of words *derived* from the Anglo-Saxon, apart from `surrender', which
is indeed *derived* from the French. But there is a world of
difference between `Anglo-Saxon' and `derived from Anglo-Saxon.'
> People may be baffled by Beowulf only by its received spelling, yet
> phonically might hear and understand most of it.
Er... no. Not even slightly. According to [1], the Saxon text of
_Beowulf_ starts:
Hwaet! We Gardena in geardagum,
theodcyninga, thrym gefrunon
hu tha aethelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceathana threatum...
(I've replaced both eth and thorn with `th'.) Perhaps I'm
particularly dense but I'd never have guessed the translation
Listen! We of the Spear-Danes in days of yore
of those clan-kings heard of their glory.
How those nobles performed courageous deeds
Often, Scyld, Scef's son, from the enemy hosts...
[1] http://www.heorot.dk/beowulf-rede-text.html
> It is also the case that the syntax of the noted Celto-Saxon atavist
> Prof. Tolkein proved to be not only comprehensible, but by the vast
> popularity of his works, most enjoyable too!
Tolkien (note spelling) wrote in modern English. That's why you can
understand it, see.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Cheese Puzzle (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ intriguing conundrum that's made
of cheese!
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 May 2008 11:35:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:9cy*[email protected]...
> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The language is so vast, John, that the 100 most used words in
>> English are still all 'old English', which is to say, they are Anglo
>> Saxon words.
>
> Not true. As I recall from my reading of Melvyn Bragg's _The
> Adventure of English_, the most commonly-used word in English that is
> of French origin is `number' which is, I think, the 79th most common
> word (and certainly in the top hundred) according to the statistics he
> quotes. I can't remember if he said that there were any other words
> of non--Anglo-Saxon derivation in the top hundred.
Putting aside the impossibility of it being French [though it is adopted
into O. Fr. and from Gr. nemo; to distribute]
Ah well, Mr, Bragg brags against leading philologists. There are 2 words
post A. Sax which are A. N., the noun NOMBRE, and the verb Nommer, both with
meaning 'number'.
The troubles with our Melvyn [once hilariously described as being "the
thinking woman's crumpet"] is that he doesn't source his comment and neither
does he explain, for example:-
Aftur thys the day wan nomyn,
That the batelle on schulde comyn.
//MS Cantab Ff ii 38 f.93
OF course the A. Sax NOMELICHE has a meaning; to name, or namely, inclusive
of naming qualities and quantities.
In fact the word NOWMER is included in the prompt. parv*. as a record of
English /speech/ [which of course means dialectical usage of language,
rather than of clerical /writing/], and is one of the first printed works in
[Chaucer's] English; printed by Pynson in 1499 from the MSS 1440 MS Harl 221
ff 206. Of course you know that the 'atavist' Chaucer nor his even more
wordy contemporary Gower, hardly spoke A. Norm.!
**Promptorium Parvulorum secundum vulgarem modum loquendi Orientallum
Anglorum.
Though given the other references this singular one need not take the entire
weight of the argument.
>> Churchill's 'on the beaches' speach is entirely composed of A. Sax
>> words, saving the last one, 'surrender', which is O. Fr.
>
> No. The famous paragraph of the speech does indeed consist entirely
> of words *derived* from the Anglo-Saxon, apart from `surrender', which
> is indeed *derived* from the French. But there is a world of
> difference between `Anglo-Saxon' and `derived from Anglo-Saxon.'
Is there indeed? So what is that 'world' difference that you cannot state?
After all, anyone can make sense of most of this, no? :-
Aftur thys the day wan nomyn,
That the batelle on schulde comyn
I do hope you have something more than spelling! Every word there is quite
intelligible to modern English readers, is you accept or deduce wan means
were, as in, 'the days were numbered', and the unusual to us formation of
'on schulde comyn' rather than 'should come on'
>> People may be baffled by Beowulf only by its received spelling, yet
>> phonically might hear and understand most of it.
>
> Er... no. Not even slightly. According to [1], the Saxon text of
> _Beowulf_ starts:
>
> Hwaet! We Gardena in geardagum,
> theodcyninga, thrym gefrunon
> hu tha aethelingas ellen fremedon.
> Oft Scyld Scefing sceathana threatum...
> (I've replaced both eth and thorn with `th'.) Perhaps I'm
> particularly dense but I'd never have guessed the translation
Perhaps you need to be a descendent of East-Saxon Wash? Even in 900 there
was hardly any understanding of West Saxon to Danelaw. What we don't know at
all is how anything was pronounced. Even so - this is admittedly a difficult
example. But will my citation not do?
> Listen! We of the Spear-Danes in days of yore
> of those clan-kings heard of their glory.
> How those nobles performed courageous deeds
> Often, Scyld, Scef's son, from the enemy hosts...
>
> [1] http://www.heorot.dk/beowulf-rede-text.html
>
>
>> It is also the case that the syntax of the noted Celto-Saxon atavist
>> Prof. Tolkein proved to be not only comprehensible, but by the vast
>> popularity of his works, most enjoyable too!
>
> Tolkien (note spelling) wrote in modern English. That's why you can
> understand it, see.
He spelled like we do? Like some of us do. Did you know he was a big critic
of Shakespeare for combining Norman, Saxon and Latinate terms together, and
coining on them, when it was not at all necessary to do so? When he proposed
the same to his quaffing partner C. S. Lewis, Lewis remarked 'we gave up
that language for this!?' Both fellas good Catholics in upper and lower case
senses, and both untroubled by Latin intrusion.
Evidently one can use bastard forms of English, Latin ones, Dane/Icelandic
ones, or a form of Viking that settlers in France utilised after they got
bored extorting Paris and settled down and integrated into Normandy, or
Saxon/Celt. This latter is what Tolkien wrote, and it is also our
predominant choice!
Phil Innes
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Cheese Puzzle (TM): it's
> like an
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ intriguing conundrum that's
> made
> of cheese!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 May 2008 16:09:10
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
Chess One <[email protected] > wrote:
>"David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The language is so vast, John, that the 100 most used words in
>>> English are still all 'old English', which is to say, they are
>>> Anglo Saxon words.
>>
>> Not true. As I recall from my reading of Melvyn Bragg's _The
>> Adventure of English_, the most commonly-used word in English that
>> is of French origin is `number' which is, I think, the 79th most
>> common word (and certainly in the top hundred) according to the
>> statistics he quotes. I can't remember if he said that there were
>> any other words of non--Anglo-Saxon derivation in the top hundred.
>
> Putting aside the impossibility of it being French [though it is
> adopted into O. Fr. and from Gr. nemo; to distribute]
Please do tell the OED about this impossibility.
> Ah well, Mr, Bragg brags against leading philologists.
Cite?
> There are 2 words post A. Sax which are A. N., the noun NOMBRE, and
> the verb Nommer, both with meaning 'number'.
>
> The troubles with our Melvyn [once hilariously described as being
> "the thinking woman's crumpet"] is that he doesn't source his
> comment
Would you care to source your rebuttal of his comments? I realise
that `You can't demonstrate that he's wrong' doesn't mean that he's
right but I find it thoroughly laughable that you, of all people,
should complain that Bragg doesn't cite his sources. (In fact, I do
not recall the extent to which Bragg cites sources; it's a while since
I read the book.)
By the way, here's a URL giving a list of the 100 most common English
words, with citation. `Number' is 76th in this list; `people', also
derived from Norman French is 80th.
http://www.duboislc.org/EducationWatch/First100Words.html
(Wow! `America' is 199th, ahead of `world' (200), `food' (205) and
`life' (241).)
> and neither does he explain, for example:-
>
> Aftur thys the day wan nomyn,
> That the batelle on schulde comyn.
>
> //MS Cantab Ff ii 38 f.93
That's Middle English, Phil. So it's hardly surprising that a word
derived from the French should appear.
>>> Churchill's 'on the beaches' speach is entirely composed of A. Sax
>>> words, saving the last one, 'surrender', which is O. Fr.
>>
>> No. The famous paragraph of the speech does indeed consist
>> entirely of words *derived* from the Anglo-Saxon, apart from
>> `surrender', which is indeed *derived* from the French. But there
>> is a world of difference between `Anglo-Saxon' and `derived from
>> Anglo-Saxon.'
>
> Is there indeed? So what is that 'world' difference that you cannot
> state?
*boggle* Well, `Anglo-Saxon' means `Anglo-Saxon' and `derived from
Anglo-Saxon' means that the original source was Anglo-Saxon but the
word has been modified and adapted since then. `Fight' comes from the
Old English `feohtan' but is clearly not the same thing.
> After all, anyone can make sense of most of this, no? :-
>
> Aftur thys the day wan nomyn,
> That the batelle on schulde comyn
>
> I do hope you have something more than spelling! Every word there is
> quite intelligible to modern English readers, is you accept or
> deduce wan means were, as in, 'the days were numbered', and the
> unusual to us formation of 'on schulde comyn' rather than 'should
> come on'
Yes, much Middle English is just a funny spelling of modern English.
But Beowulf was not written in Middle English -- it predates Middle
English by up to three hundred years.
>>> People may be baffled by Beowulf only by its received spelling, yet
>>> phonically might hear and understand most of it.
>>
>> Er... no. Not even slightly. According to [1], the Saxon text of
>> _Beowulf_ starts:
>>
>> Hwaet! We Gardena in geardagum,
>> theodcyninga, thrym gefrunon
>> hu tha aethelingas ellen fremedon.
>> Oft Scyld Scefing sceathana threatum...
>>
>> (I've replaced both eth and thorn with `th'.) Perhaps I'm
>> particularly dense but I'd never have guessed the translation
>
> Perhaps you need to be a descendent of East-Saxon Wash? Even in 900
> there was hardly any understanding of West Saxon to Danelaw. What we
> don't know at all is how anything was pronounced. Even so - this is
> admittedly a difficult example. But will my citation not do?
`Admittedly a difficult example'?!? You claimed, quoted above, that
the only difficulty that a modern reader would have with Beowulf is
the arcane spelling. This is total, utter nonsense.
>>> It is also the case that the syntax of the noted Celto-Saxon
>>> atavist Prof. Tolkein proved to be not only comprehensible, but by
>>> the vast popularity of his works, most enjoyable too!
>>
>> Tolkien (note spelling) wrote in modern English. That's why you
>> can understand it, see.
>
> He spelled like we do?
Er, yes.
http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/images/Tolkien-page-Bodleian.jpg
Hard to read, I grant, since the handwriting's awful. But the
spelling is clearly modern.
> Did you know he was a big critic of Shakespeare for combining
> Norman, Saxon and Latinate terms together, and coining on them, when
> it was not at all necessary to do so? [...]
>
> Evidently one can use bastard forms of English, Latin ones,
> Dane/Icelandic ones, or a form of Viking that settlers in France
> utilised after they got bored extorting Paris and settled down and
> integrated into Normandy, or Saxon/Celt. This latter is what Tolkien
> wrote, and it is also our predominant choice!
*boggle* If you believe that either of us is speaking and writing
`Saxon/Celt', you are utterly deluded.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Frozen Game (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a family board game but it's
frozen in a block of ice and twice
as fast!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 May 2008 02:01:57
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
David Richerby wrote:
>
> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> The language is so vast, John, that the 100 most used words in
> >>> English are still all 'old English', which is to say, they are
> >>> Anglo Saxon words.
> >>
> >> Not true. As I recall from my reading of Melvyn Bragg's _The
> >> Adventure of English_, the most commonly-used word in English that
> >> is of French origin is `number' which is, I think, the 79th most
> >> common word (and certainly in the top hundred) according to the
> >> statistics he quotes. I can't remember if he said that there were
> >> any other words of non--Anglo-Saxon derivation in the top hundred.
> >
> > Putting aside the impossibility of it being French [though it is
> > adopted into O. Fr. and from Gr. nemo; to distribute]
>
> Please do tell the OED about this impossibility.
>
> > Ah well, Mr, Bragg brags against leading philologists.
>
> Cite?
>
> > There are 2 words post A. Sax which are A. N., the noun NOMBRE, and
> > the verb Nommer, both with meaning 'number'.
> >
> > The troubles with our Melvyn [once hilariously described as being
> > "the thinking woman's crumpet"] is that he doesn't source his
> > comment
>
> Would you care to source your rebuttal of his comments? I realise
> that `You can't demonstrate that he's wrong' doesn't mean that he's
> right but I find it thoroughly laughable that you, of all people,
> should complain that Bragg doesn't cite his sources. (In fact, I do
> not recall the extent to which Bragg cites sources; it's a while since
> I read the book.)
>
> By the way, here's a URL giving a list of the 100 most common English
> words, with citation. `Number' is 76th in this list; `people', also
> derived from Norman French is 80th.
>
> http://www.duboislc.org/EducationWatch/First100Words.html
>
> (Wow! `America' is 199th, ahead of `world' (200), `food' (205) and
> `life' (241).)
Is chickentikkacurry anywhere in the top hundred (100) Davo-boy?..
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2008 16:33:02
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
[quote="Harry Payne"][quote="samsloan"]In the 1990s, the USCF
consistently had annual revenues of about $6.5 million.
In 2004, the Executive Board decided to "get rid of the books and
equipment business".
After that was done, revenues dropped to $3.2 million.
Making Chess Life subscription based only would cause the USCF to lose
at least 20,000 members (probably more) and would cost at least one
million in revenues.
It seems unlikely that the USCF will survive this.
Remember that all this is being done just to protect Goichberg's
sacred cows. Eliminate the sacred cows, and the USCF immediately
becomes profitable again.
It is not the magazine that is causing the USCF to lose money. It is
the website. Cut down on the unnecessary expenses of the website and
the USCF is profitable again.
The current threat facing the USCF membership is that the entire
organization could go under just because of protecting a few sacred
cows.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
Sam, consider what you are saying. I am one who has fought to keep
a hardcopy Chess Life. I argued the point many times on this Forum.
But the facts are it costs over $200,000.00 a year , The website does
not cost anywhere near that amount. I will hate to see Chess Life go
100% on line. But if that is what it takes to save the USCF, SO BE IT!
It is at least worth a try, if it does not look as though it will fly,
it can be reversed. [/quote]
This is just the problem. It cannot be reversed.
Once Chess Life is gone, it is gone. There will be such a huge drop in
revenues that it will be impossible to bring it back.
It may cost over $200,000 per year but USCF revenues are $3.2 million
per year. Do you expect the USCF to just keep all the money and give
nothing to the members?
Websites are free. Nobody pays to view them.
You think I am writing all of this just to attack Goichberg? You are
mistaken. I am trying to save the magazine.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2008 07:07:43
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 21, 4:01 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:bec1539f-01a4-4c47-9e2f-6675cd7acf01@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 1:20 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I think this used to be true, Larry. Recently the web has taken over, and
> >> its cheap - free! The 3 big American sites are the Susan Polgar blog,
> >> Chesscafe and Chessville.
>
> >> Chessville is currently overhauling them both, and with only 2 star GMs
> >> [one
> >> a Brit (RK)].
>
> >> But our quality and range of journalism /every week/ puts CL into the
> >> deep
> >> shade for its paucity of material /every month/.
>
> >> Those, forgive me for such bluntness, are the facts of life.
>
> > BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This has to be one of the funniest things
> > ever posted to the chess groups! Oh, please P Innes, keep it up!
>
> Why is it funny, idiot?
>
> You are funny. Your don't even like chess or any subject, and like to think
> to yourself things are funny. Yet in chess your talents are yet to be
> revealed, and on language you are capable of writing 'Old English Is Dead'
> requiring 4 words of 'Old English' to say so.
>
> That is your measure. Please understand your modest position in our
> hierarchy. For sure, you are welcome aboard, but if your current and past
> writing continues like this, then your role on the ship is as ballast.
>
> Phil Innes
So, Philsy, how much do you pay Chessville to 'publish' you?
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2008 07:05:22
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 20, 10:17 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 20, 10:13 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > > I think this used to be true, Larry. Recently the web has taken over, and
> > > its cheap - free! The 3 big American sites are the Susan Polgar blog,
> > > Chesscafe and Chessville.
>
> These Web sites are so "big", that I never heard
> of them until I read about them here in rgc.
>
> > > Chessville is currently overhauling them both, and with only 2 star GMs [one
> > > a Brit (RK)].
>
> Um, "superstar" if you don't mind. As we know,
> Mr. Keene is the world's foremost authority on
> chess and mind-sports (ref: R. Keene, Himself).
>
> > > But our quality and range of journalism /every week/ puts CL into the deep
> > > shade for its paucity of material /every month/.
>
> > > Those, forgive me for such bluntness, are the facts of life.
> > BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This has to be one of the funniest things
> > ever posted to the chess groups! Oh, please P Innes, keep it up!
>
> Maybe in terms of sheer /quantity/ of material
> the nearly-an-IM is correct. After all, there are
> archives which build up over time at Chessville,
> while a monthly rag is rather limited in scope.
>
> In fact, even here in rgc the sheer /quantity/ of
> IMnesian material is overwhelming; a monthly
> magazine has no chance to compete; might I
> suggest War and Peace... or Complete Works
> of Winston Churchill? Yes, I think that is a
> much fairer comparison-- in terms of /quantity/,
> that is.
>
> -- help bot
It was the "quality" brag on P Innes' part that I found funny. I have
no doubt he can put out word-salad by the bowl-full as needed. Or
simply harvest newsgroup posts and pass them off as 'journalism', as
he has done in the past.
|
| | |
Date: 25 May 2008 09:33:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 20, 10:17 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On May 20, 10:13 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > I think this used to be true, Larry. Recently the web has taken over,
>> > > and
>> > > its cheap - free! The 3 big American sites are the Susan Polgar blog,
>> > > Chesscafe and Chessville.
>>
>> These Web sites are so "big", that I never heard
>> of them until I read about them here in rgc.
>>
>> > > Chessville is currently overhauling them both, and with only 2 star
>> > > GMs [one
>> > > a Brit (RK)].
>>
>> Um, "superstar" if you don't mind. As we know,
>> Mr. Keene is the world's foremost authority on
>> chess and mind-sports (ref: R. Keene, Himself).
>>
>> > > But our quality and range of journalism /every week/ puts CL into the
>> > > deep
>> > > shade for its paucity of material /every month/.
>>
>> > > Those, forgive me for such bluntness, are the facts of life.
>> > BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This has to be one of the funniest things
>> > ever posted to the chess groups! Oh, please P Innes, keep it up!
>>
>> Maybe in terms of sheer /quantity/ of material
>> the nearly-an-IM is correct. After all, there are
>> archives which build up over time at Chessville,
>> while a monthly rag is rather limited in scope.
>>
>> In fact, even here in rgc the sheer /quantity/ of
>> IMnesian material is overwhelming; a monthly
>> magazine has no chance to compete; might I
>> suggest War and Peace... or Complete Works
>> of Winston Churchill? Yes, I think that is a
>> much fairer comparison-- in terms of /quantity/,
>> that is.
>>
>> -- help bot
>
> It was the "quality" brag on P Innes' part that I found funny. I have
> no doubt he can put out word-salad by the bowl-full as needed. Or
> simply harvest newsgroup posts and pass them off as 'journalism', as
> he has done in the past.
Chessville is the most quoted site in the world on Wikipedia. It has more
readers than chesslife, goes to 100 countries, and what Brennan has written
is an insult to those readers - and to Chessville's columnists.
If he is criticising my weekly column, then that is intended to reflect
other material in chess, URL's are always given in full [wherever available]
and this is what leader columns do; they illustrate the range of commentary
on events during any given period.
Why Brennan should challenge this is completely unknown, but then, so is his
chess-intelligence. The only thing we know about him is that he resents
people who are better than him, at chess and in fact, all other topics - and
he stalks people, plays around with name-identities, and foists his own
cynical, mean and idiotic understanding onto others - as if it were they who
owned these opinions.
As usual, the misanthropic commentary above does not actually discuss
anything. It mentions no standard, but simply smears other writers, insults
their readers, and that is the demonstrated standard of these fools, who
actually have no public at all.
Neither should they - they don't exactly write as if they even like the
game.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2008 15:10:22
From:
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
samsloan wrote:
>In the 1990s, the USCF consistently had annual revenues of about $6.5
>million.
>
>In 2004, the Executive Board decided to "get rid of the books and
>equipment business".
>
>After that was done, revenues dropped to $3.2 million.
Slippery sam is quoting revenue figures instead of profit
(revenue minus costs) figures. Now why would he do that,
I wonder?
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2008 05:42:35
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 21, 7:27 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 21, 6:12 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 5:25 am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > As you MUST know -- or so I hope -- a significant percentage of USCF
> > > > members (in my time, it was about 50 percent) do not play in a
> > > > single tournament in a year. The hardcore tournament cadre was
> > > > about eight to 10,000.
>
> > > > [And the rest of them are only members so they get _Chess Life_.]
>
> > > Why not just sell these people a subscription to the magazine?
>
> > > Dave.
>
> > > --
> > > David Richerby Confusing Evil T-Shirt (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement but it's genuinely
> > > evil and you can't understand it!
>
> > In the 1990s, the USCF consistently had annual revenues of about $6.5
> > million.
>
> > In 2004, the Executive Board decided to "get rid of the books and
> > equipment business".
>
> > After that was done, revenues dropped to $3.2 million.
>
> > Making Chess Life subscription based only would cause the USCF to lose
> > at least 20,000 members (probably more) and would cost at least one
> > million in revenues.
>
> > It seems unlikely that the USCF will survive this.
>
> > Remember that all this is being done just to protect Goichberg's
> > sacred cows. Eliminate the sacred cows, and the USCF immediately
> > becomes profitable again.
>
> > It is not the magazine that is causing the USCF to lose money. It is
> > the website. Cut down on the unnecessary expenses of the website and
> > the USCF is profitable again.
>
> > The current threat facing the USCF membership is that the entire
> > organization could go under just because of protecting a few sacred
> > cows.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> "Sacred cows?" I don't think we've herd the last of this......
During my one year on the board, I was censured and Joel Channing
filed an ethics complaint against me which he later withdrew for
raising the issues of these sacred cows.
Now that I am no longer on the board, my position is even more
tenuous. I have already been banned for one year for posting to the
USCF Issues Forum, although the ban has not been put into effect
because it is being "reviewed".
For this reason, I cannot spell out in public what those scared cows
are. However, they are obvious. Any USCF member who calls me I will be
willing to tell him. However, I will not discuss this with the non-
member anti-USCF crowd such as Phil Innes for example.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2008 04:27:44
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 21, 6:12 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 21, 5:25 am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > As you MUST know -- or so I hope -- a significant percentage of USCF
> > > members (in my time, it was about 50 percent) do not play in a
> > > single tournament in a year. The hardcore tournament cadre was
> > > about eight to 10,000.
>
> > > [And the rest of them are only members so they get _Chess Life_.]
>
> > Why not just sell these people a subscription to the magazine?
>
> > Dave.
>
> > --
> > David Richerby Confusing Evil T-Shirt (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement but it's genuinely
> > evil and you can't understand it!
>
> In the 1990s, the USCF consistently had annual revenues of about $6.5
> million.
>
> In 2004, the Executive Board decided to "get rid of the books and
> equipment business".
>
> After that was done, revenues dropped to $3.2 million.
>
> Making Chess Life subcription based only would cause the USCF to lose
> at least 20,000 members (probably more) and would cost at least one
> million in revenues.
>
> It seems unlikely that the USCF will survive this.
>
> Remember that all this is being done just to protect Goichberg's
> sacred cows. Eliminate the sacred cows, and the USCF immediately
> becomes profitable again.
>
> It is not the magazine that is causing the USCF to lose money. It is
> the website. Cut down on the unnecessary expenses of the website and
> the USCF is profitable again.
>
> The current threat facing the USCF membership is that the entire
> organization could go under just because of protecting a few sacred
> cows.
>
> Sam Sloan
"Sacred cows?" I don't think we've herd the last of this......
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2008 04:12:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 21, 5:25 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As you MUST know -- or so I hope -- a significant percentage of USCF
> > members (in my time, it was about 50 percent) do not play in a
> > single tournament in a year. The hardcore tournament cadre was
> > about eight to 10,000.
>
> > [And the rest of them are only members so they get _Chess Life_.]
>
> Why not just sell these people a subscription to the magazine?
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Confusing Evil T-Shirt (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement but it's genuinely
> evil and you can't understand it!
In the 1990s, the USCF consistently had annual revenues of about $6.5
million.
In 2004, the Executive Board decided to "get rid of the books and
equipment business".
After that was done, revenues dropped to $3.2 million.
Making Chess Life subcription based only would cause the USCF to lose
at least 20,000 members (probably more) and would cost at least one
million in revenues.
It seems unlikely that the USCF will survive this.
Remember that all this is being done just to protect Goichberg's
sacred cows. Eliminate the sacred cows, and the USCF immediately
becomes profitable again.
It is not the magazine that is causing the USCF to lose money. It is
the website. Cut down on the unnecessary expenses of the website and
the USCF is profitable again.
The current threat facing the USCF membership is that the entire
organization could go under just because of protecting a few sacred
cows.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 21 May 2008 13:36:54
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Why not just sell these people a subscription to the magazine?
>
> In the 1990s, the USCF consistently had annual revenues of about
> $6.5 million.
>
> In 2004, the Executive Board decided to "get rid of the books and
> equipment business".
>
> After that was done, revenues dropped to $3.2 million.
Quoting revenues without costs tells us nothing.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Crystal T-Shirt (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fashion statement but it's completely
transparent!
|
| |
Date: 20 May 2008 20:17:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 20, 10:13 pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> > I think this used to be true, Larry. Recently the web has taken over, and
> > its cheap - free! The 3 big American sites are the Susan Polgar blog,
> > Chesscafe and Chessville.
These Web sites are so "big", that I never heard
of them until I read about them here in rgc.
> > Chessville is currently overhauling them both, and with only 2 star GMs [one
> > a Brit (RK)].
Um, "superstar" if you don't mind. As we know,
Mr. Keene is the world's foremost authority on
chess and mind-sports (ref: R. Keene, Himself).
> > But our quality and range of journalism /every week/ puts CL into the deep
> > shade for its paucity of material /every month/.
>
> > Those, forgive me for such bluntness, are the facts of life.
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This has to be one of the funniest things
> ever posted to the chess groups! Oh, please P Innes, keep it up!
Maybe in terms of sheer /quantity/ of material
the nearly-an-IM is correct. After all, there are
archives which build up over time at Chessville,
while a monthly rag is rather limited in scope.
In fact, even here in rgc the sheer /quantity/ of
IMnesian material is overwhelming; a monthly
magazine has no chance to compete; might I
suggest War and Peace... or Complete Works
of Winston Churchill? Yes, I think that is a
much fairer comparison-- in terms of /quantity/,
that is.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 May 2008 19:13:10
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 20, 1:20 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think this used to be true, Larry. Recently the web has taken over, and
> its cheap - free! The 3 big American sites are the Susan Polgar blog,
> Chesscafe and Chessville.
>
> Chessville is currently overhauling them both, and with only 2 star GMs [one
> a Brit (RK)].
>
> But our quality and range of journalism /every week/ puts CL into the deep
> shade for its paucity of material /every month/.
>
> Those, forgive me for such bluntness, are the facts of life.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This has to be one of the funniest things
ever posted to the chess groups! Oh, please P Innes, keep it up!
|
| | |
Date: 21 May 2008 17:01:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:bec1539f-01a4-4c47-9e2f-6675cd7acf01@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 1:20 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think this used to be true, Larry. Recently the web has taken over, and
>> its cheap - free! The 3 big American sites are the Susan Polgar blog,
>> Chesscafe and Chessville.
>>
>> Chessville is currently overhauling them both, and with only 2 star GMs
>> [one
>> a Brit (RK)].
>>
>> But our quality and range of journalism /every week/ puts CL into the
>> deep
>> shade for its paucity of material /every month/.
>>
>> Those, forgive me for such bluntness, are the facts of life.
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This has to be one of the funniest things
> ever posted to the chess groups! Oh, please P Innes, keep it up!
Why is it funny, idiot?
You are funny. Your don't even like chess or any subject, and like to think
to yourself things are funny. Yet in chess your talents are yet to be
revealed, and on language you are capable of writing 'Old English Is Dead'
requiring 4 words of 'Old English' to say so.
That is your measure. Please understand your modest position in our
hierarchy. For sure, you are welcome aboard, but if your current and past
writing continues like this, then your role on the ship is as ballast.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 20 May 2008 10:59:00
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 20, 8:58=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Having said that, I believe the boaard will
> finally finish off the USCF if it adopts the
> Goichberg plan, as I understand it.
Based on the added information in your post, I see that I drew
misinformed conclusions from the way I understood Frank Marshall's
letter, and that while Chess Life may not be "advertising-driven", it
is indeed profitable as a magazine - as the chief driver for basic
membership of the USCF.
Thus, I now concur with your views.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 20 May 2008 07:58:12
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
ASSASSINATING THE USCF
I was editor of Chess Life from 1984 to 1988.
So that you will understand, I do NOT have a
sentimental attachment to CL forever and ever.
Having said that, I believe the boaard will
finally finish off the USCF if it adopts the
Goichberg plan, as I understand it.
The plan would destroy the regular membership
category, which is the backbone of the Federation.
Please try to use a bit of common sense. How
many times have we seen chessplayers at tournaments
with dog-eared copies of CL sticking out of back pockets
or on the coffeetable of a friend? I also seem to recall
syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer saying
that Chess Life was his favorite magazine.
As you MUST know -- or so I hope -- a significant
percentage of USCF members (in my time, it was
about 50 percent) do not play in a single tournament in
a year. The hardcore tournament cadre was about eight
to 10,000.
WHY WERE THOSE WHO DO NOT PLAY, OR PLAY
ONLY ONCE A YEAR, MEMBERS OF THE USCF?
For a chance to read the catalogue?
For a chance to receive a USCF membership card
and the act of signing it?
For a chance to receive advertisements for a USCF
credit card?
Or because thousands upon thousands of
full-paying customers receive something tangible in
their nerdy mitts about once a month? Namely, CL.
The Goichberg idea is so awful that I can't help
but believe it will be adopted.
The move to Crossville was just about the last straw.
Now Bill is about to assassinate the USCF, wittingly
or unwittingly.
Sigh.
Yours, Larry Parr
samsloan wrote:
> Dr. Frank Brady, who is Chairman of the Department of Mass
> Communications, Journalism, Television and Film at St. John's
> University, New York and is Professor of Communication Arts and
> Journalism at that university, as well as being the founding editor of
> Chess Life magazine, has expressed opposition to the plan to put Chess
> Life online as follows:
>
> Colleagues:
>
> As the founding Editor of Chess Life, and as someone who has been in
> the magazine business for a number of years, I can say the following:
>
> The reason that some magazines and newspapers are switching from print
> to on-line versions is because of a lack of advertising (due to the
> poor economy). Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times,
> told me personally that he was "message agnostic" and that he didn't
> care whether there would be a hard copy of the Times or whether it
> would eventually be delivered totally online. However, the online
> version has yet to make money...and the Times is hurting financially.
>
> Since Chess Life is not an advertising-driven medium (although it has
> some ads), it should be looked at from its promotional and "pride"
> value.
>
> If I were still on the USCF Board I would definitely vote against
> turning Chess Life into an online publication. And for what it is
> worth, I have both an online and a home-delivery subscription to The
> New York Times, and I rarely ever read the on-line version. I might
> also point out that many marketers are giving up on e-mail and online
> approaches because it's just not working. They are reverting to the
> old tried and true direct mail efforts.
>
> Dr. Frank Brady, President
> Marshall Chess Club
|
| | |
Date: 21 May 2008 11:25:18
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> As you MUST know -- or so I hope -- a significant percentage of USCF
> members (in my time, it was about 50 percent) do not play in a
> single tournament in a year. The hardcore tournament cadre was
> about eight to 10,000.
>
> [And the rest of them are only members so they get _Chess Life_.]
Why not just sell these people a subscription to the magazine?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Confusing Evil T-Shirt (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement but it's genuinely
evil and you can't understand it!
|
| | |
Date: 20 May 2008 14:20:07
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> ASSASSINATING THE USCF
>
> I was editor of Chess Life from 1984 to 1988.
>
> So that you will understand, I do NOT have a
> sentimental attachment to CL forever and ever.
>
> Having said that, I believe the boaard will
> finally finish off the USCF if it adopts the
> Goichberg plan, as I understand it.
>
> The plan would destroy the regular membership
> category, which is the backbone of the Federation.
>
> Please try to use a bit of common sense. How
> many times have we seen chessplayers at tournaments
> with dog-eared copies of CL sticking out of back pockets
> or on the coffeetable of a friend? I also seem to recall
> syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer saying
> that Chess Life was his favorite magazine.
For most people it is an adequate connection. I don't really like the mix it
has, or the somewhat bland commentaries - even so, it is improvable, and it
is an adequate /connection/ device.
The thing of it is, no editor is now independent of the views of Bill
Goichberg, and those are firmly set in some imagined golden age of the past
century.
> As you MUST know -- or so I hope -- a significant
> percentage of USCF members (in my time, it was
> about 50 percent) do not play in a single tournament in
> a year. The hardcore tournament cadre was about eight
> to 10,000.
Yes - Tim Redman wrote something similar recently. The fact is that half the
adult membership do not play ANY rated games of chess. Of those who do, some
7,500 of them don't play enough to qualify for a provisional rating -
thereby the US ratings service has a core market of just seventy-five
hundred players.
> WHY WERE THOSE WHO DO NOT PLAY, OR PLAY
> ONLY ONCE A YEAR, MEMBERS OF THE USCF?
>
> For a chance to read the catalogue?
>
> For a chance to receive a USCF membership card
> and the act of signing it?
>
> For a chance to receive advertisements for a USCF
> credit card?
>
> Or because thousands upon thousands of
> full-paying customers receive something tangible in
> their nerdy mitts about once a month? Namely, CL.
I think this used to be true, Larry. Recently the web has taken over, and
its cheap - free! The 3 big American sites are the Susan Polgar blog,
Chesscafe and Chessville.
Chessville is currently overhauling them both, and with only 2 star GMs [one
a Brit (RK)].
But our quality and range of journalism /every week/ puts CL into the deep
shade for its paucity of material /every month/.
Those, forgive me for such bluntness, are the facts of life.
The trouble with all the above is that Bill Goichberg may foundly think he
can migrate all to the web - but that requires some skill, better quality of
article than he currently has, and most of all - it can't be about USCF,
since web readers attend a site because it is about /them/.
Not some fuddy-duddy organisational group who, with few exceptions, hardly
note the existance of chess players interests.
> The Goichberg idea is so awful that I can't help
> but believe it will be adopted.
>
> The move to Crossville was just about the last straw.
> Now Bill is about to assassinate the USCF, wittingly
> or unwittingly.
He would rather go down with 'his' ship, rather than let anyone else save
it. That is the psychological aspect of things. Why he thinks its his is
unknown. But as you say, it is all of a piece with his approach. That which
cannot evolve, Darwin told us, is doomed to stagnate, decline and die.
> Sigh.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
It will also kill the Federation stone dead. But that is anticipated! It is
simply inevitable that with a huge mortgage, a declining market, no more
reserves of anything, and annual loses of $200,000, that the currently
stressed financial market will pull the plug.
Those with any wit at all, who have not given up, are some steps ahead of
Bill's tragic endgame. He just can't resign a lost position, and play
another game.
They'll turn ChessHut, the brand new HQ, into a nice bed & bathroom
showroom, pay off their debts mostly, and dissapear. For most active chess
players in the country that already happened - except for 7,500 of them,
which is very much like a private member's club - not any national
organisation 60 years old.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 20 May 2008 06:26:12
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 20, 2:51 am, samsloan <[email protected] > quoted, in part:
> Since Chess Life is not an advertising-driven medium
Although I tend to agree with his sentiments - particularly as my
local public library has a subscription to Chess Life - I'm afraid
this particular statement in his letter is the biggest single argument
in _favor_ of going electronic with CL.
Essentially, switching from paper to electronic has the downside of
reducing the perceived value of an issue, and of making it more
difficult to sell copies instead of giving them away. If one isn't in
the business of selling copies to make money, then *if the USCF is in
financial difficulties*, switching to an on-line version of Chess
Life, particularly if at least some portion of the savings this
generates could be passed on to the membership in reduced membership
dues (otherwise, the demands of forest conservation notwithstanding, I
encourage USCF members to fight it tooth and nail) would seem to be a
natural and inevitable step.
John Savard
|
|
