| |
Main
I feel a bit surreal about siding with, of all people, Ray Gordon,
cus Roberts, and Sam Sloan. Since I am to be a member of the
lunatic fringe, perhaps someone could suggest a form of dementia;
perhaps a bizarre theory on chess history would be appropriate.
I am not sure that anyone will win a legal battle on this issue. The
harm done is too vague, and it is still possible that despite denials
up to now, which have no legal weight, the impostor can resort with
the advice of a lawyer to the position that this was all an obvious
spoof.
However, I have no doubt from the evidence I have seen that Truong is
guilty of sending the messages. I might note that although I have a
PhD in the computer science, my area is very theoretical, and gives me
no special standing in judging the issue. I think that any person who
looks at Mr Motterhead's report without previous bias will come to the
same conclusion. Truong's previous behavior on the issue of his
alleged PhD makes it easier for me to believe that he did not just
make a (seriously stupid) bad judgment in this case, but instead has
real ethical problems.
If Truong would just resign, I would be against any lawsuits.
Unfortunately, it looks like Truong will not step down until things
get much uglier, and we need the lawsuits of one of these strange
people to get Truong to be forced to testify under oath, at which
point I am guessing he will change his story. Although Sam is hardly a
perfect candidate, he has the energy and shall we say legal experience
to actually pursue this case, and I hope he continues with it.
While we are going after evil-doers, I have another suggestion. We
could position the USCF as a true moral force, and actually get
significant positive press coverage for it. I suggest 2 issues to
focus on
1) Very, very public opposition to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as head of FIDE.
Any direct negative impact for our chess professionals would be more
than offset by coverage in the newspapers, which would raise the
profile of chess in general, and put us (for once) on the side of the
angels. Kirsan is an easy target, and the press would support us. Of
course, the fact that it is the right thing to do i, I hope, extra
motivation.
2) Support of Kasparov
We supported Kasparov when he played chess, even when his actions
seemed more geared toward enriching himself than benefiting chess in
general. Now, he has taken on a difficult and noble struggle on behalf
of the beleaguered Russian opposition, and we forget about him
entirely. More people seem concerned about expressions of support for
Bobby Fischer than for Kasparov; I know whose goals I prefer. Again,
this would raise the profile of chess, and I feel it is also the right
thing to do.
In fact, chess players throughout history have tended to support
idealistic, and occasionally quixotic, causes; I plan to write some
columns on this at some point. It is one of the charming aspects of
our chess culture, and deserves to be celebrated. Some of our leading
players came to the US to fight slavery. When the Hungarian revolution
was crushed, top chess players fled. With a few famous exceptions,
chess players tended to be very anti-Nazi, no matter what their
nationality.
Feel free to ignore me, though; after all, I am now signed up as a
card-carrying lunatic. I am feeling so crazy that I am considering
throwing my hat into the circus ring of USCF politics when my younger
daughter goes to college in 3.5 years; if that is not lunacy, I do not
know what is.
Jerry Spinrad
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 18:50:40
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lunatics vs Evildoers
|
DICKENS: OFF-TOPIC
>Dickens had! It is quite interesting to learn that his greatest fans were such as x [as well as much later, Freud] - but Dickens was insistent after Christmas Carol that any misrepresentation or misunderstanding of himself and mass interest should end.> -- Phil Innes
In later years, the Soviets treated Dickens as
an "objective historically progressive writer," which
was a phrase also attached to Henry VIII and any other
centralizing monarch who killed people wantonly.
You will recollect that in "Hard Times" Dickens'
working-class hero Stephen Blackpool would not join a
labor union. Dickens' view of unions was typical of
the English middle class of the period. To understand
the man's politics -- well, we have all read Orwell's
essay on the subject. You have squires and happy
servants living in a family. Extrapolate that to
wider society, and you can probably make a case that
the great man would have been a 1950s liberal leavened
by Christian belief. Hubert Humphrey's "Happy
Warrior" politics and the hoopla at a Democrat
Convention when "Happy Days are Here Again" gets
played -- well, both would have appealed to Dickens.
The big issue becomes whether Dickens would
later have deserted New Deal liberalism for leftish
progressive politics, for Christian fundamentalist
politics or for neocon national grandeur mixed with
the welfare state. I admit that laissez faire
politics has little place in Dickens, though he does
say that there is plenty of truth in Thomas
Gradgrind's philosophy. So a case can be made for
everything except Dickens becoming a xist.
Perhaps someone will prove me wrong but a
top-flight xist critic such as George Lukacs never
expected historically progressive figures, in the
xist sense, to become Communists.
Yours, Larry Parr
The Truth wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> >
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .
>
> > > Kasparov's domestic platform for Russia is fine,
> > > and we as a chess organization can support all of the
> > > good things, though the sad fact is that Garry will
> > > lose in Russia not because Putin's government will
> > > prevent him from contesting, but because Kasparov has
> > > virtually no public support.
> >
> > Actually, on the Maher show he says that is /not/ true. Wherever he can find
> > an audience he gets good support. But state controls media, tv and
> > newspapers, and ... of course he has no chance to even /connect/ with any
> > mass culture.
>
> Well, actually I've seen Gazza on numerous occasions on the humble 'box'
> spraiking to the mass, being led away by 'security' etc, etc. You sure
> you managed to crawl into the 21st century Phil? You might just as
> easily substitute _Rupert_ for "state" in your above observation & ask
> what the diff. is (state controls media yada yada)..
> >
> > Off-topic?
>
> Probably. It's interesting to ruminate that the Queen disowns Dickens,
> doubtless something to do with his style not to mention his vulgarian
> taste in what should be simple things. I mean, that Polish chap Conrad
> was writing finely @ about the same time - no?..
> >
> > Dickens had! It is quite interesting to learn that his greatest fans were
> > such as x [as well as much later, Freud] - but Dickens was insistent
> > after Christmas Carol that any misrepresentation or misunderstanding of
> > himself and mass interest should end:
>
> When he was dying the K or Q of the day ordained the streets around his
> sickbed be strewn with straw to muffle the incessant clip-clopping of
> London's horse traffic <chortle> but that's not all, I remember
> 'kidnapped' as not a bad read - the filum? well y'know, as media goes
> that were'nt too bad either..
>
> >
> > He distinguished his message about social change, contra Bentham, x,
> > Engels, by insisting that it came from within, that it had a deep and even
> > spiritual factor involving a core Self, and then acted outwardly upon
> > society, whereas good Benthamites insisted on social conditioning and
> > manipulations to 'reform' lives of individuals.
> >
> > And here we have Garry, catching Russia up with 'modern thought' as Dickens
> > proposed it, circa 1840.
>
> I can't agree with your last sentence here Phil - it's far too glib. You
> need to seriously consider reading Turgenev (or re-reading as the case
> may be) for an insiders viewpoint on bringing Russia up to speed..
>
> tt
>
>
> >
> > Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2007 13:01:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Lunatics vs Evildoers
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DICKENS: OFF-TOPIC
>
>>Dickens had! It is quite interesting to learn that his greatest fans were
>>such as x [as well as much later, Freud] - but Dickens was insistent
>>after Christmas Carol that any misrepresentation or misunderstanding of
>>himself and mass interest should end.> -- Phil Innes
>
> In later years, the Soviets treated Dickens as
> an "objective historically progressive writer," which
> was a phrase also attached to Henry VIII and any other
> centralizing monarch who killed people wantonly.
Ay 'politiprop'
Dickens was also 'borrowed upon' in England where he was primus inter
pares - the one compared with. A later 'Soviet' era writer, but no Soviet!
Zamyatin has this to say
[inter alia, I note a previous comment on Turgenev]
"Turgenev, on the other hand, was a born lover, a romantic lead, and he
could never have succeeded in a comic role,. on the whole, however, the
writer's range is immeasureably wider than that of the actor on the theater;
the writer's capacity for reincarnation is far richer. In some writers, it
reaches astonishing, incredible proportions: Dickens was such a writer."
Those comments, coming from YZ are very high praise indeed, but for
/artistic/ measures.
Later he makes comments on differences between Dickens and Wells - and while
noting the slow staedy entirely human pace, unexcited by 'science' and
'novelty', he continues to rek that Dickens appears as a smiling humorous
face turned toward humanity - a spontaneous acceptance of it [these my
paraphrases of a long piece] which he contrasts with Wells.. " a sharp,
hating love... the smile of irony... his pen turns into a lash... and the
scars last a long time."
I suggest these appreciations on the two writers are fair parallel to the
politicization of Dickens, who simply does not fit that role, while Wells
does far better.
What he does say about the relationship is that Wells, and Eliot, Meredith,
Hardy, Shaw, Gissing, Bennett, Galsworthy, are all "the branches growing out
of the mighty trunk of Dickens."
Anyway... those are long, parenthetic anecdotes.
> You will recollect that in "Hard Times" Dickens'
> working-class hero Stephen Blackpool would not join a
> labor union. Dickens' view of unions was typical of
> the English middle class of the period. To understand
> the man's politics -- well, we have all read Orwell's
> essay on the subject. You have squires and happy
> servants living in a family.
Almost Tolstoyan - to a certain date.
> Extrapolate that to
> wider society, and you can probably make a case that
> the great man would have been a 1950s liberal leavened
> by Christian belief. Hubert Humphrey's "Happy
> Warrior" politics and the hoopla at a Democrat
> Convention when "Happy Days are Here Again" gets
> played -- well, both would have appealed to Dickens.
Perhaps, on the one hand, but what sharp caricatures he would draw with the
other! In addition to what is [falsely] called Rabelasian in Dickens, there
is also the dark-side, and that instance of 5 months in the blacking factory
at age 12, after having been removed from school, and the direct insult he
felt at the window, passers by observing his shackled state, never left him,
and was perhaps the deepest link with /real/ life and events, rather than
any 'discursive factors' upon a sociology of them.
> The big issue becomes whether Dickens would
> later have deserted New Deal liberalism for leftish
> progressive politics, for Christian fundamentalist
> politics or for neocon national grandeur mixed with
> the welfare state. I admit that laissez faire
> politics has little place in Dickens, though he does
> say that there is plenty of truth in Thomas
> Gradgrind's philosophy. So a case can be made for
> everything except Dickens becoming a xist.
It may be truer to say, apres Zamyatin above, that he contained multitudes,
and that that complexity of factors could never be reduced to any ~ist or
~ism.
> Perhaps someone will prove me wrong but a
> top-flight xist critic such as George Lukacs never
> expected historically progressive figures, in the
> xist sense, to become Communists.
Maybe Orwell references that in Letters? I'll look anon.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> The Truth wrote:
>> Chess One wrote:
>> >
>> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> .
>>
>> > > Kasparov's domestic platform for Russia is fine,
>> > > and we as a chess organization can support all of the
>> > > good things, though the sad fact is that Garry will
>> > > lose in Russia not because Putin's government will
>> > > prevent him from contesting, but because Kasparov has
>> > > virtually no public support.
>> >
>> > Actually, on the Maher show he says that is /not/ true. Wherever he can
>> > find
>> > an audience he gets good support. But state controls media, tv and
>> > newspapers, and ... of course he has no chance to even /connect/ with
>> > any
>> > mass culture.
>>
>> Well, actually I've seen Gazza on numerous occasions on the humble 'box'
>> spraiking to the mass, being led away by 'security' etc, etc. You sure
>> you managed to crawl into the 21st century Phil? You might just as
>> easily substitute _Rupert_ for "state" in your above observation & ask
>> what the diff. is (state controls media yada yada)..
>> >
>> > Off-topic?
>>
>> Probably. It's interesting to ruminate that the Queen disowns Dickens,
>> doubtless something to do with his style not to mention his vulgarian
>> taste in what should be simple things. I mean, that Polish chap Conrad
>> was writing finely @ about the same time - no?..
>> >
>> > Dickens had! It is quite interesting to learn that his greatest fans
>> > were
>> > such as x [as well as much later, Freud] - but Dickens was insistent
>> > after Christmas Carol that any misrepresentation or misunderstanding of
>> > himself and mass interest should end:
>>
>> When he was dying the K or Q of the day ordained the streets around his
>> sickbed be strewn with straw to muffle the incessant clip-clopping of
>> London's horse traffic <chortle> but that's not all, I remember
>> 'kidnapped' as not a bad read - the filum? well y'know, as media goes
>> that were'nt too bad either..
>>
>> >
>> > He distinguished his message about social change, contra Bentham,
>> > x,
>> > Engels, by insisting that it came from within, that it had a deep and
>> > even
>> > spiritual factor involving a core Self, and then acted outwardly upon
>> > society, whereas good Benthamites insisted on social conditioning and
>> > manipulations to 'reform' lives of individuals.
>> >
>> > And here we have Garry, catching Russia up with 'modern thought' as
>> > Dickens
>> > proposed it, circa 1840.
>>
>> I can't agree with your last sentence here Phil - it's far too glib. You
>> need to seriously consider reading Turgenev (or re-reading as the case
>> may be) for an insiders viewpoint on bringing Russia up to speed..
>>
>> tt
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Cordially, Phil Innes
>
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 15:02:40
From: The Truth
Subject: Re: Lunatics vs Evildoers
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> A SANE LUNATIC
AN INSUFFERABLE - WHO ME? I'M IN THE KNOW BELIEVE YOU ME!..
>sad fact is that Garry will
> lose in Russia not because Putin's government will
> prevent him from contesting, but because Kasparov has
> virtually no public support.
Really? & how do you know this Mr Intheknow-knowitall Parr? I suppose
you've been going round with your stupid microphone interviewing the
common chess-keen Muscovite & doing the numbers - yeah, well sure you
have & talk is cheap too..
>
> I found Jeremy's patronizing treatment of Sam,
> cus and Ray Gordon to be predictably intolerable.
> On the other hand, it is tolerably predictable that
> those three will not patronize Jeremy.
& nyah,nyah,nyah,nyah,nyah..
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
Up yours..
tt
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 22:12:14
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Lunatics vs Evildoers
|
[email protected] wrote:
>We supported Kasparov when he played chess, even when his actions
>seemed more geared toward enriching himself than benefiting chess in
>general. Now, he has taken on a difficult and noble struggle on behalf
>of the beleaguered Russian opposition, and we forget about him
>entirely. More people seem concerned about expressions of support for
>Bobby Fischer than for Kasparov; I know whose goals I prefer.
I strongly support Kasparov's present reform efforts. Alas,
my opinion doesn't matter, because I do not reside in Russia.
I live in a US state that elected a killer robot from the 22nd
century as governor.
Bobby Fischer is irrelevant unless he does something with his
life chess or non-chess) worth paying attention to.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 13:17:05
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Lunatics vs Evildoers
|
[email protected] wrote:
> While we are going after evil-doers, I have another suggestion. We
> could position the USCF as a true moral force, and actually get
> significant positive press coverage for it. I suggest 2 issues to
> focus on
>
> 1) Very, very public opposition to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as head of
> FIDE.
But do try to find some allies beforehand. This is a noble cause but
it could look like isolationism if only the USCF were complaining
loudly. Of course, there may be no choice in the matter if nobody
else is prepared to stand up. Proposing an American (or British)
alternative to Ilyumzhinov would also be the kiss of death.
On a very loosely related note, does the USCF plan to adopt the FIDE
laws of chess at any point?
> 2) Support of Kasparov
>
> We supported Kasparov when he played chess, even when his actions
> seemed more geared toward enriching himself than benefiting chess in
> general. Now, he has taken on a difficult and noble struggle on
> behalf of the beleaguered Russian opposition, and we forget about
> him entirely.
But do ask before throwing the USCF publically behind Kasparov.
Russian politics is extremely nationalist; perceived western
intervention or even support may be the last thing Kasparov needs.
The Russian media would, I'm sure, be delighted to spin USCF backing
of Kasparov as `Kasparov is Bush's Stooge'.
A chess organization taking a moral stance about something would be a
great thing, though. Please may I join your club of lunatics?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Electronic Surprise Smokes (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a pack of cigarettes but not like
you'd expect and it uses electricity!
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 19:11:04
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lunatics vs Evildoers
|
A SANE LUNATIC
"Good grief!" as a fine young man was accustomed
to exclaim.
Jeremy Spinrad threatens to run for USCF office
on the platform of, given the claims in his posting of
October 22, reasonably expressed lunacy.
Since a sane lunatic is what the USCF may need,
Jeremy looks like a good candidate.
If Jeremy is really serious about the first of
his two incipient platform points, then he will call
for a new FIDE "team." A decisive battle with FIDE
requires men willing to undertake the fight. Bill
Kelleher is now part of that corrupt system, and the
first thing that must be done is for the USCF to state
that he does not represent America or its interests.
On the other hand, if Jeremy is not really
serious, he will not make an issue of getting new
people involved to carry out a policy diametrically
the opposite of our disastrous capitulations to FIDE.
Our FIDE "team" has not only failed to carry out
Delegate directives, they have acted in the case of
ADM-64 against drug testing in a manner 180 degrees
opposite the clear meaning of that resolution.
Kasparov's domestic platform for Russia is fine,
and we as a chess organization can support all of the
good things, though the sad fact is that Garry will
lose in Russia not because Putin's government will
prevent him from contesting, but because Kasparov has
virtually no public support.
I found Jeremy's patronizing treatment of Sam,
cus and Ray Gordon to be predictably intolerable.
On the other hand, it is tolerably predictable that
those three will not patronize Jeremy.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> FROM EVANS ON CHESS NEWSPAPER COLUMN
>
> Reprinted courtesy of Chesstours. @ All rights
> reserved.
>
> CHESS VS. POLITICS
>
> "Chess has rules which must be followed. In politics our opponents
> can change the rules any time they want. Russia today is a police
> state. It's my country. I have to try to change it for the better."
> Thus Gary Kasparov, 44, arguably the greatest player in history, told
> 60 minutes (on 9/23/07) why he quit chess for what many observers
> consider a futile attempt to lead the opposition to president Putin,
> who is extremely popular in Russia.
>
> In recognition of Kasparov's struggle, he recently was awarded the
> Pundik Freedom Prize (worth around $19,000) named after the former
> editor-in-chief of the Danish daily Politiken. And his new book How
> Life Imitates Chess already was translated into 19 languages! Yet does
> the justice that exists on the chess board exist in real life?
>
> In a frank interview, Kasparov stated: "My decision in 1993 to
> break away from the world chess body, FIDE, was the worst mistake of
> my career. I thought we could start fresh with a professional
> organization, but there was little support from the players. I tried
> many times to reunite the chess world, but as usual the strong
> personal interests on all sides prevented this. There is apparent
> unity now, but it is superficial and the players will not sacrifice
> to fight for their rights against FIDE.
>
> "Chess will always be a part of my life. I still have chess books
> to write, but I have moved on. Now building the democracy that
> Russians deserve is a challenge that will last a lifetime.
>
> "Russia is heading in the wrong direction and someone of my
> celebrity can communicate the message. We have no access to
> television, you can't campaign. It's not like politics in the
> civilized world where you can go on talk shows, raise money, campaign
> normally. There's no healthy debate.
>
> "Of course I'm concerned about my personal safety, but so what?
> That's part of the game today. I hired security and do what I can for
> my family and myself. I could move to New York or London and enjoy
> life, but I don't want the KGB to rule my country. It's as if you gave
> me a bad chess position. I can't complain. There are no guarantees I
> won't end up in jail. I can only rely on my reputation. If they want
> to go after me, they will have to break another barrier to do it.
>
> "Russia is supplying Iran with nuclear technology! The problem is
> that Putin is doing everything to disrupt global stability. He's
> trading Russian influence in areas of instability for gains at home."
>
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I feel a bit surreal about siding with, of all people, Ray Gordon,
> > cus Roberts, and Sam Sloan. Since I am to be a member of the
> > lunatic fringe, perhaps someone could suggest a form of dementia;
> > perhaps a bizarre theory on chess history would be appropriate.
> >
> > I am not sure that anyone will win a legal battle on this issue. The
> > harm done is too vague, and it is still possible that despite denials
> > up to now, which have no legal weight, the impostor can resort with
> > the advice of a lawyer to the position that this was all an obvious
> > spoof.
> >
> > However, I have no doubt from the evidence I have seen that Truong is
> > guilty of sending the messages. I might note that although I have a
> > PhD in the computer science, my area is very theoretical, and gives me
> > no special standing in judging the issue. I think that any person who
> > looks at Mr Motterhead's report without previous bias will come to the
> > same conclusion. Truong's previous behavior on the issue of his
> > alleged PhD makes it easier for me to believe that he did not just
> > make a (seriously stupid) bad judgment in this case, but instead has
> > real ethical problems.
> >
> > If Truong would just resign, I would be against any lawsuits.
> > Unfortunately, it looks like Truong will not step down until things
> > get much uglier, and we need the lawsuits of one of these strange
> > people to get Truong to be forced to testify under oath, at which
> > point I am guessing he will change his story. Although Sam is hardly a
> > perfect candidate, he has the energy and shall we say legal experience
> > to actually pursue this case, and I hope he continues with it.
> >
> > While we are going after evil-doers, I have another suggestion. We
> > could position the USCF as a true moral force, and actually get
> > significant positive press coverage for it. I suggest 2 issues to
> > focus on
> >
> > 1) Very, very public opposition to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as head of FIDE.
> > Any direct negative impact for our chess professionals would be more
> > than offset by coverage in the newspapers, which would raise the
> > profile of chess in general, and put us (for once) on the side of the
> > angels. Kirsan is an easy target, and the press would support us. Of
> > course, the fact that it is the right thing to do i, I hope, extra
> > motivation.
> >
> > 2) Support of Kasparov
> >
> > We supported Kasparov when he played chess, even when his actions
> > seemed more geared toward enriching himself than benefiting chess in
> > general. Now, he has taken on a difficult and noble struggle on behalf
> > of the beleaguered Russian opposition, and we forget about him
> > entirely. More people seem concerned about expressions of support for
> > Bobby Fischer than for Kasparov; I know whose goals I prefer. Again,
> > this would raise the profile of chess, and I feel it is also the right
> > thing to do.
> >
> > In fact, chess players throughout history have tended to support
> > idealistic, and occasionally quixotic, causes; I plan to write some
> > columns on this at some point. It is one of the charming aspects of
> > our chess culture, and deserves to be celebrated. Some of our leading
> > players came to the US to fight slavery. When the Hungarian revolution
> > was crushed, top chess players fled. With a few famous exceptions,
> > chess players tended to be very anti-Nazi, no matter what their
> > nationality.
> >
> > Feel free to ignore me, though; after all, I am now signed up as a
> > card-carrying lunatic. I am feeling so crazy that I am considering
> > throwing my hat into the circus ring of USCF politics when my younger
> > daughter goes to college in 3.5 years; if that is not lunacy, I do not
> > know what is.
> >
> > Jerry Spinrad
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 13:45:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Lunatics vs Evildoers
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>A SANE LUNATIC
>
> If Jeremy is really serious about the first of
> his two incipient platform points, then he will call
> for a new FIDE "team." A decisive battle with FIDE
> requires men willing to undertake the fight. Bill
> Kelleher is now part of that corrupt system, and the
> first thing that must be done is for the USCF to state
> that he does not represent America or its interests.
>
> On the other hand, if Jeremy is not really
> serious, he will not make an issue of getting new
> people involved to carry out a policy diametrically
> the opposite of our disastrous capitulations to FIDE.
> Our FIDE "team" has not only failed to carry out
> Delegate directives, they have acted in the case of
> ADM-64 against drug testing in a manner 180 degrees
> opposite the clear meaning of that resolution.
How sweet it is! Far too sweet. In the affair-Short, the English Fed told
Fide to go to hell. Might as well speak your truth, since there is no
negotiation possible.
> Kasparov's domestic platform for Russia is fine,
> and we as a chess organization can support all of the
> good things, though the sad fact is that Garry will
> lose in Russia not because Putin's government will
> prevent him from contesting, but because Kasparov has
> virtually no public support.
Actually, on the Maher show he says that is /not/ true. Wherever he can find
an audience he gets good support. But state controls media, tv and
newspapers, and ... of course he has no chance to even /connect/ with any
mass culture.
Off-topic?
Dickens had! It is quite interesting to learn that his greatest fans were
such as x [as well as much later, Freud] - but Dickens was insistent
after Christmas Carol that any misrepresentation or misunderstanding of
himself and mass interest should end:
He distinguished his message about social change, contra Bentham, x,
Engels, by insisting that it came from within, that it had a deep and even
spiritual factor involving a core Self, and then acted outwardly upon
society, whereas good Benthamites insisted on social conditioning and
manipulations to 'reform' lives of individuals.
And here we have Garry, catching Russia up with 'modern thought' as Dickens
proposed it, circa 1840.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> I found Jeremy's patronizing treatment of Sam,
> cus and Ray Gordon to be predictably intolerable.
> On the other hand, it is tolerably predictable that
> those three will not patronize Jeremy.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 16:10:49
From: The Truth
Subject: Re: Lunatics vs Evildoers
|
Chess One wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
.
> > Kasparov's domestic platform for Russia is fine,
> > and we as a chess organization can support all of the
> > good things, though the sad fact is that Garry will
> > lose in Russia not because Putin's government will
> > prevent him from contesting, but because Kasparov has
> > virtually no public support.
>
> Actually, on the Maher show he says that is /not/ true. Wherever he can find
> an audience he gets good support. But state controls media, tv and
> newspapers, and ... of course he has no chance to even /connect/ with any
> mass culture.
Well, actually I've seen Gazza on numerous occasions on the humble 'box'
spraiking to the mass, being led away by 'security' etc, etc. You sure
you managed to crawl into the 21st century Phil? You might just as
easily substitute _Rupert_ for "state" in your above observation & ask
what the diff. is (state controls media yada yada)..
>
> Off-topic?
Probably. It's interesting to ruminate that the Queen disowns Dickens,
doubtless something to do with his style not to mention his vulgarian
taste in what should be simple things. I mean, that Polish chap Conrad
was writing finely @ about the same time - no?..
>
> Dickens had! It is quite interesting to learn that his greatest fans were
> such as x [as well as much later, Freud] - but Dickens was insistent
> after Christmas Carol that any misrepresentation or misunderstanding of
> himself and mass interest should end:
When he was dying the K or Q of the day ordained the streets around his
sickbed be strewn with straw to muffle the incessant clip-clopping of
London's horse traffic <chortle > but that's not all, I remember
'kidnapped' as not a bad read - the filum? well y'know, as media goes
that were'nt too bad either..
>
> He distinguished his message about social change, contra Bentham, x,
> Engels, by insisting that it came from within, that it had a deep and even
> spiritual factor involving a core Self, and then acted outwardly upon
> society, whereas good Benthamites insisted on social conditioning and
> manipulations to 'reform' lives of individuals.
>
> And here we have Garry, catching Russia up with 'modern thought' as Dickens
> proposed it, circa 1840.
I can't agree with your last sentence here Phil - it's far too glib. You
need to seriously consider reading Turgenev (or re-reading as the case
may be) for an insiders viewpoint on bringing Russia up to speed..
tt
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2007 12:53:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Lunatics vs Evildoers
|
"The Truth" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .
>
>> > Kasparov's domestic platform for Russia is fine,
>> > and we as a chess organization can support all of the
>> > good things, though the sad fact is that Garry will
>> > lose in Russia not because Putin's government will
>> > prevent him from contesting, but because Kasparov has
>> > virtually no public support.
>>
>> Actually, on the Maher show he says that is /not/ true. Wherever he can
>> find
>> an audience he gets good support. But state controls media, tv and
>> newspapers, and ... of course he has no chance to even /connect/ with any
>> mass culture.
>
> Well, actually I've seen Gazza on numerous occasions on the humble 'box'
> spraiking to the mass, being led away by 'security' etc, etc. You sure
> you managed to crawl into the 21st century Phil?
hello, uh... Nichel. we are talking about Gaz in Russia, and the pictures
you saw were not from a pravda photographer... there is russian tv coverage
of 'lunatic democrat elements' which features a less than candid view of the
dangers and alarums such people pose to the State
> You might just as
> easily substitute _Rupert_ for "state" in your above observation & ask
> what the diff. is (state controls media yada yada)..
a couple of years in a freezing square waiting to see people just like
yourself, though more verbal, could be a great mediator to your attitude
>> Off-topic?
>
> Probably. It's interesting to ruminate that the Queen disowns Dickens,
> doubtless something to do with his style not to mention his vulgarian
> taste in what should be simple things. I mean, that Polish chap Conrad
> was writing finely @ about the same time - no?..
um, not quite. dickens invented the modern novel - and there wasna much
competition, maybe Balzac in France?
in england you had walter scott and Our Jane, but scott wrote mostly
romances [ie, of the past, /romans/] rather than of the new, hence 'novel',
and while Our Jane did write of ordinary people, you has to be a quaint
drawing room chatty virgin of the middle-country classes to get into 'em
dickens wrote about the life of his times where it was all happening, in the
largest /city/ in the world, and with a vast crew of assorted characters -
while the queen may have cared about him, it was no reciprocal relationship
>> Dickens had! It is quite interesting to learn that his greatest fans were
>> such as x [as well as much later, Freud] - but Dickens was insistent
>> after Christmas Carol that any misrepresentation or misunderstanding of
>> himself and mass interest should end:
>
> When he was dying the K or Q of the day ordained the streets around his
> sickbed be strewn with straw to muffle the incessant clip-clopping of
> London's horse traffic <chortle> but that's not all, I remember
> 'kidnapped' as not a bad read - the filum? well y'know, as media goes
> that were'nt too bad either..
although sum pepul think stevensen rote that
i stayed in a lighthouse keepers cottage off mull, where he wrote other
material
>> He distinguished his message about social change, contra Bentham,
>> x,
>> Engels, by insisting that it came from within, that it had a deep and
>> even
>> spiritual factor involving a core Self, and then acted outwardly upon
>> society, whereas good Benthamites insisted on social conditioning and
>> manipulations to 'reform' lives of individuals.
>>
>> And here we have Garry, catching Russia up with 'modern thought' as
>> Dickens
>> proposed it, circa 1840.
>
> I can't agree with your last sentence here Phil - it's far too glib.
any single sentence about a man and his times would be, neh?
> You
> need to seriously consider reading Turgenev (or re-reading as the case
> may be) for an insiders viewpoint on bringing Russia up to speed..
Zamyatin himself said in 'Soviet Heretic' that the old is insufficient to
compass the new, besides, in a culture of habitual group lying, we can
hardly trace our way back from here to there with any assurance
not this, not that
whatever happens in russia isn't going to be pretty, but it does need to be
new, and /pro se/ which means, of itself, which is a something not yet
attempted in that country
china has somehow survived without knowing who they will be
Turgenev would have liked that
> tt
for now
Phil Innes
>
>>
>> Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 15:49:00
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lunatics vs Evildoers
|
FROM EVANS ON CHESS NEWSPAPER COLUMN
Reprinted courtesy of Chesstours. @ All rights
reserved.
CHESS VS. POLITICS
"Chess has rules which must be followed. In politics our opponents
can change the rules any time they want. Russia today is a police
state. It's my country. I have to try to change it for the better."
Thus Gary Kasparov, 44, arguably the greatest player in history, told
60 minutes (on 9/23/07) why he quit chess for what many observers
consider a futile attempt to lead the opposition to president Putin,
who is extremely popular in Russia.
In recognition of Kasparov's struggle, he recently was awarded the
Pundik Freedom Prize (worth around $19,000) named after the former
editor-in-chief of the Danish daily Politiken. And his new book How
Life Imitates Chess already was translated into 19 languages! Yet does
the justice that exists on the chess board exist in real life?
In a frank interview, Kasparov stated: "My decision in 1993 to
break away from the world chess body, FIDE, was the worst mistake of
my career. I thought we could start fresh with a professional
organization, but there was little support from the players. I tried
many times to reunite the chess world, but as usual the strong
personal interests on all sides prevented this. There is apparent
unity now, but it is superficial and the players will not sacrifice
to fight for their rights against FIDE.
"Chess will always be a part of my life. I still have chess books
to write, but I have moved on. Now building the democracy that
Russians deserve is a challenge that will last a lifetime.
"Russia is heading in the wrong direction and someone of my
celebrity can communicate the message. We have no access to
television, you can't campaign. It's not like politics in the
civilized world where you can go on talk shows, raise money, campaign
normally. There's no healthy debate.
"Of course I'm concerned about my personal safety, but so what?
That's part of the game today. I hired security and do what I can for
my family and myself. I could move to New York or London and enjoy
life, but I don't want the KGB to rule my country. It's as if you gave
me a bad chess position. I can't complain. There are no guarantees I
won't end up in jail. I can only rely on my reputation. If they want
to go after me, they will have to break another barrier to do it.
"Russia is supplying Iran with nuclear technology! The problem is
that Putin is doing everything to disrupt global stability. He's
trading Russian influence in areas of instability for gains at home."
[email protected] wrote:
> I feel a bit surreal about siding with, of all people, Ray Gordon,
> cus Roberts, and Sam Sloan. Since I am to be a member of the
> lunatic fringe, perhaps someone could suggest a form of dementia;
> perhaps a bizarre theory on chess history would be appropriate.
>
> I am not sure that anyone will win a legal battle on this issue. The
> harm done is too vague, and it is still possible that despite denials
> up to now, which have no legal weight, the impostor can resort with
> the advice of a lawyer to the position that this was all an obvious
> spoof.
>
> However, I have no doubt from the evidence I have seen that Truong is
> guilty of sending the messages. I might note that although I have a
> PhD in the computer science, my area is very theoretical, and gives me
> no special standing in judging the issue. I think that any person who
> looks at Mr Motterhead's report without previous bias will come to the
> same conclusion. Truong's previous behavior on the issue of his
> alleged PhD makes it easier for me to believe that he did not just
> make a (seriously stupid) bad judgment in this case, but instead has
> real ethical problems.
>
> If Truong would just resign, I would be against any lawsuits.
> Unfortunately, it looks like Truong will not step down until things
> get much uglier, and we need the lawsuits of one of these strange
> people to get Truong to be forced to testify under oath, at which
> point I am guessing he will change his story. Although Sam is hardly a
> perfect candidate, he has the energy and shall we say legal experience
> to actually pursue this case, and I hope he continues with it.
>
> While we are going after evil-doers, I have another suggestion. We
> could position the USCF as a true moral force, and actually get
> significant positive press coverage for it. I suggest 2 issues to
> focus on
>
> 1) Very, very public opposition to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as head of FIDE.
> Any direct negative impact for our chess professionals would be more
> than offset by coverage in the newspapers, which would raise the
> profile of chess in general, and put us (for once) on the side of the
> angels. Kirsan is an easy target, and the press would support us. Of
> course, the fact that it is the right thing to do i, I hope, extra
> motivation.
>
> 2) Support of Kasparov
>
> We supported Kasparov when he played chess, even when his actions
> seemed more geared toward enriching himself than benefiting chess in
> general. Now, he has taken on a difficult and noble struggle on behalf
> of the beleaguered Russian opposition, and we forget about him
> entirely. More people seem concerned about expressions of support for
> Bobby Fischer than for Kasparov; I know whose goals I prefer. Again,
> this would raise the profile of chess, and I feel it is also the right
> thing to do.
>
> In fact, chess players throughout history have tended to support
> idealistic, and occasionally quixotic, causes; I plan to write some
> columns on this at some point. It is one of the charming aspects of
> our chess culture, and deserves to be celebrated. Some of our leading
> players came to the US to fight slavery. When the Hungarian revolution
> was crushed, top chess players fled. With a few famous exceptions,
> chess players tended to be very anti-Nazi, no matter what their
> nationality.
>
> Feel free to ignore me, though; after all, I am now signed up as a
> card-carrying lunatic. I am feeling so crazy that I am considering
> throwing my hat into the circus ring of USCF politics when my younger
> daughter goes to college in 3.5 years; if that is not lunacy, I do not
> know what is.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 13:27:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Lunatics vs Evildoers
|
Dear Larry,
Garry Kasparov made a surprise appearance this week on the popular Bill
Maher TV show, and concluded rather as LE did at bottom.
One interesting factor of that interview, was that a guest on the show said
immediately afterwards that he was completely flabbergasted at the
complexity and grasp of Kasparov's expression in respect of the political
situation, and contrasted that with US politicians, and, he said, he is not
even speaking his native language. [actual words were something like; "he is
thinking in Russian, speaking in English"]
Phil Innes
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FROM EVANS ON CHESS NEWSPAPER COLUMN
>
> Reprinted courtesy of Chesstours. @ All rights
> reserved.
>
> CHESS VS. POLITICS
>
> "Chess has rules which must be followed. In politics our opponents
> can change the rules any time they want. Russia today is a police
> state. It's my country. I have to try to change it for the better."
> Thus Gary Kasparov, 44, arguably the greatest player in history, told
> 60 minutes (on 9/23/07) why he quit chess for what many observers
> consider a futile attempt to lead the opposition to president Putin,
> who is extremely popular in Russia.
>
> In recognition of Kasparov's struggle, he recently was awarded the
> Pundik Freedom Prize (worth around $19,000) named after the former
> editor-in-chief of the Danish daily Politiken. And his new book How
> Life Imitates Chess already was translated into 19 languages! Yet does
> the justice that exists on the chess board exist in real life?
>
> In a frank interview, Kasparov stated: "My decision in 1993 to
> break away from the world chess body, FIDE, was the worst mistake of
> my career. I thought we could start fresh with a professional
> organization, but there was little support from the players. I tried
> many times to reunite the chess world, but as usual the strong
> personal interests on all sides prevented this. There is apparent
> unity now, but it is superficial and the players will not sacrifice
> to fight for their rights against FIDE.
>
> "Chess will always be a part of my life. I still have chess books
> to write, but I have moved on. Now building the democracy that
> Russians deserve is a challenge that will last a lifetime.
>
> "Russia is heading in the wrong direction and someone of my
> celebrity can communicate the message. We have no access to
> television, you can't campaign. It's not like politics in the
> civilized world where you can go on talk shows, raise money, campaign
> normally. There's no healthy debate.
>
> "Of course I'm concerned about my personal safety, but so what?
> That's part of the game today. I hired security and do what I can for
> my family and myself. I could move to New York or London and enjoy
> life, but I don't want the KGB to rule my country. It's as if you gave
> me a bad chess position. I can't complain. There are no guarantees I
> won't end up in jail. I can only rely on my reputation. If they want
> to go after me, they will have to break another barrier to do it.
>
> "Russia is supplying Iran with nuclear technology! The problem is
> that Putin is doing everything to disrupt global stability. He's
> trading Russian influence in areas of instability for gains at home."
|
|
