| |
Main
Date: 21 Feb 2009 19:38:25
From: Mr.Vidmar
Subject: Gambit Article About Polgar Ct. Decision
|
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/some-claims-in-lawsuit-against-federation-are-dismissed-others-are-still-pending/#comments
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2009 17:53:41
From:
Subject: Re: Gambit Article About Polgar Ct. Decision
|
On Feb 21, 7:38=A0pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected] > wrote:
> http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/some-claims-in-lawsuit-aga...
I see the NY Times is still 'sporting' legal comments and opinion by
those themselves involved in the case, who do not declared their own
interests in it - who refused to admit that interest to me
personally.
What a rag this 'chess column' is become! More like the NY Inquirer.
There are exactly 3 possibilities in this case which can be examined
without partisan orientation.
Why has NY Times ignored two of them? To continue like this is merely
shameful, to celebrate unresolved cases with participants is infamous.
On my previous writing the NY Times removed a message not up to its
standards, but since postings here are audited, it seems NY Times
Gambit Blog needed to be reminded of it's standards.
This is not chess reporting. It is neither chess nor reporting!
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2009 21:07:31
From: Mr.Vidmar
Subject: Re: Gambit Article About Polgar Ct. Decision
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:38 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/some-claims-in-lawsuit-aga...
>
> I see the NY Times is still 'sporting' legal comments and opinion by
> those themselves involved in the case, who do not declared their own
> interests in it - who refused to admit that interest to me
> personally.
>
> What a rag this 'chess column' is become! More like the NY Inquirer.
>
> There are exactly 3 possibilities in this case which can be examined
> without partisan orientation.
>
> Why has NY Times ignored two of them? To continue like this is merely
> shameful, to celebrate unresolved cases with participants is infamous.
>
> On my previous writing the NY Times removed a message not up to its
> standards, but since postings here are audited, it seems NY Times
> Gambit Blog needed to be reminded of it's standards.
>
> This is not chess reporting. It is neither chess nor reporting!
>
> Phil Innes
Phil, two questions:
1. Did you report anywhere on the Internet between 2/4/09 and 2/14/09
that the Secret Service had searched Gregory Alexander's home? (a yes
or no answer will suffice); if the answer is yes,
[Insert "yes" or "no" here]
2. Please tell us where and provide a link to the report.
[insert hyperlink to where you wrote about it here]
As to your screed above, it has been noted in the Gambit blog before
that I am involved in litigation with Susan Polgar.
As to your "reporting," please note that your ravings are not printable
journalism in anything other than on-line publications like Chessville.
They are just ravings; sound and fury signifying nothing.
|
|
