Re: Chessville Vignettes
Rob
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 15, 6:31 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history may
> >
> > enjoy.
> >
> > http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/vignettes/index.htm
> >
> > Check it out. It is unique in that it is reader driven.
>
> A few things in the Frank Marshall article strike me as odd:
>
> 1) Marhalll is described as "conqueror of Lasker, Capablanca,
> Rubinstein." While he did win some games against these three, overall
> he had a decidedly losing record against them, especially the first
> two: +2 -12 =11 vs. Lasker, +2 -22 =28 vs. Capablanca, and +9 -11
> =16 vs. Rubinstein. These are hardly the stats of a conqueror. It would
> have been more accurate to say something like "At various times
> Marshall won games against Lasker, Capablanca, Rubinstein and other
> greats of his day."
It is not incorrect. I am sure there is even an improvement over your
suggestion as well if one were trying to be completely precise..
> 2) "In 1904 [Marshall] won the Cambridge Springs event by 1.5
> points over Lasker; it was Lasker's first tournament defeat in ten
> years!" If by "tournament defeat" you mean that Lasker failed to
> take first place, the span of time involved was not ten years, but well
> less than nine. The Hastings tournament, where Lasker placed 3rd,
> finished on 2 September 1895, while Cambridge Springs ended 19 May
> 1904, making the time span 8 years, 8 months, and 17 days.
Again, it is not incorrect. 8 is nearly 10 given it's proximity to 10
and it's distance from 1.
It could be said more precisely but to do so would in no way alter or
improve what was written. I think it would render it more clinical and
less interesting to read.
> 3) "Frank Marshall's fighting style and sense of fair play made
> his games exciting to watch." While a sense of fair play can make one
> an honorable person, it has no bearing on whether one's games are
> exciting to watch. Any move allowed by the rules is fair.
You ignored the word "and". It is obvious to me that waht the author
was saying was that Marshall was interesting to watch and to read about
because of his exciting play and his sense of fairness.(I think the
example was his acting as an advocate for Capablanca.)
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1169648559.1...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Why don't you write us your own exemplary essay on your favorite player
>> or
>> event?
>
> I thought I would try my hand at this, carefully keeping to a level
> of thoroughness and accuracy similar to what we've seen at ChessVile so
> far, and trying to write in the same style:
I am not sure if Lord Kingston is aware that he is criticising writing of
the chess public from his haughty tower. But I think its time to examine if,
in his opinion, chess writing is the sacred preserve of the few who may not
be examined, or if indeed many views are useful.
I had the same concerns 5 years ago and copy my own words below to a Certain
Writer from 2/16/2002 on this very topic:-
<< A running series of caustic comments on several subjects, mostly Russian
topics, have passed between Chesscafe's Edward Winter and Larry Evans often
involving the interpretation and implication of material by other writers.>>
<< It may seem from the above that Chesscafe has the greater role in
suppressing unwelcome opinions, >>
<< Larry Evans supported by Larry Parr have experienced difficulty in having
their views fairly expressed at Chesscafe, citing editorial interference and
abstructions by its publisher Hanon Russell.>>
<< 4) Will Chesscafe allow any views to be expressed other than those
favoured by its own columnists, or that reference their views? Chesscafe
seems to experience difficulty in differentiating the partisan journalism of
those it publishes with anything more robust that can be considered
history.>>
What my correspondent answered to these concerns is private!
<< 5) That there may be other views to those expressed principally by
Evans/Winter does not necessarily detract from either of their work.
Lionising either of them does reduce both their researches into partisan
journalism,>>
And so is the answer to that private.
---
When people rag on other people's work, being destructively critical, we
have to assess to what degree they will even allow others to have any say at
all !
And these citations of my own concerns are fair questions about chess
writing, and now written here fair and square and in the open. They do not
insist on any one point of view, but actually encourage dialog rather than
partisan approaches.
Chesscafe's forum is now shut down, since such narrow and partisano views
eventually bored what was once a fine forum into its own grave.
Readers interested in the origin of this longtiome antagonism will note it
was about the degree of Soviet coercian in chess, citing one example
Keres/Botvinnik. No one much has liked Evans' suggestions that it was so,
and even very extensively so.
About a week later on 2/18/2002 I received this note from a Russian
historian, who reports another historian plus this snippet about [the now
late] David Bronstein:
//Recently in our magazine "64"
was published an extract from Bronstein's future book where he
accuses the Soviet chess officials of compulsion several soviet
chess players in Smyslov's favour.//
Following these scandals which had become for a few seasons 'popular' in
Russian chess circles; who talk about these issues much more freely than we
do, BTW, I was able to achieve some confirmations from Mark Taimanov,
objectively substantiated by KGB records - which are now published.
Whether Keres/Botvinnik can be specifically resolved is perhaps a matter of
qualified opinion, certainly of further investigations - but that was NOT
the issue, just an example of it.The arguments were that no systemic
'management' was taking place.
The difficulty in having a discussion, rather than diatribes and assertions
proposing views of favorites, was a seeming denial on the part of Chesscafe
writers that such a Soviet-era factor was in fact widespread and quite
systematic, while resisting views to the contrary - resisting even having
other views appear! In short - Chesscafe became a partisan advocate for one
opinion only.
As we see now, Bronstein and Taimanov have also spoken - and not only them.
So below the surface of this current correspondance is the issue of a form
of cheating and whether we in the West could be allowed to discuss it as
Russians themselves could. [see 64 ref above]. Or if we should accept the
opinions of chess writers who do not intend to have their own views fairly
examined, while they attack the writing of others, non-stop.
This is now, as was then, an issue!
Phil Innes
Rob
Doesn't suprise me that someone associated with "chess diner" would try
to suppress someone elses work. They have a history of doing that.
Taylor Kingston
Our Rob once again demonstrates his strange world-view, this time in
the area of ethical values and copyright law. In his mind, unauthorized
use of copyrighted material is "work" (rather than, say, plagiarism or
theft) and a request to cease the unauthorized use is "suppression"
(rather than a defense of one's property).
By this logic, if a burglar breaks into Rob's house and steals, he is
merely "working," and if Rob objects, he is guilty of "suppressing" the
burglar's work.
Rob
LOL
"Chess Diner" = "Chess Cafe'" I didn't think I would actually have to
spell it out. But Fact Curators may tend to be creativty challenged.
samsloan
described in
http://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html
This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.
I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
knew Raymond Weinstein.
In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
picture, not me.
I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
again.
Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.
Sam Sloan
Rob
On Jan 25, 5:55 pm, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
> described inhttp://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html
>
> This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
> Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
> on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.
>
> I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
> appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
> knew Raymond Weinstein.
>
> In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
> picture, not me.
>
> I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
> again.
>
> Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
> that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.
>
> Sam Sloan
There appears to bbe a pattern, Sam. Only certain"approved" writers are
allowed to write about chess. Perhaps you might make a submission to
the Vignettes site?
Rob
On Jan 21, 1:19 am, "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > > -- help bot
>
> > You may not call yourself "smart bot" :-) Compared to Jason Repa, even a grapefruit might appear to be quite
> smart!
>
> > Maybe bot will send in something to Vignettes as well? Nah, here I am in agreement with Taylor Kingston that such material
> is best left to the experts. For one thing, this way you are able to
> save
> a whole step in the process (the one where a multitude of factual
> errors
> are later corrected by people who actually have some real facts).
> Saving
> steps means less work, and I am all for that.
>
> However, I would be willing to check over (as if Fritz could not do
> this
> a thousand times better) any chess analysis for obvious blunders, such
> as the one in which GM Soltis -- after bragging that he took great care
> in
> compiling one book of chess games -- overlooked a simple capture of a
> free Rook by the deeply hidden: "pxR -- duh!"
>
> I get a lot of emails these days, and it seems to me that were I
> given
> just *five minutes* to look over any one of them, I could easily spot
> most
> of the errors and correct them before they are sent out to *thousands*
> of
> recipients. Yet it always seems to be the case that these writers have
> LARGE egos, and cannot recognize the need for any improvement in their
> wares whatever. In fact, many of these newsletters, as I shall call
> them,
> contradict one another as to the facts, or at the very least, take the
> same
> set of facts and from them draw opposing positions which their writers
> cling to like a fish to water.
>
> Hey, if Tinker Taylor gets to call himself smarter than the average
> bear,
> then why can't I call myself smart bot? Who's higher-rated at GetClub,
> me or him? Who just made the egregious error (ooooh, it feels so good
> to be able to use that word in this particular context) of wrongly
> assuming
> that a writer must have meant only Frank Marshall's *tournament* games?
> Who "overlooked" pxR, me or him? Whose horrid oversight was spotted
> by that obnoxious GM, Ray Keene? Who miscalculated his correspondence
> rating as "2300+" -- missing by at least 2%, me or him? Obviously,
> when
> you can answer these questions, it will become cristal cleer which of
> us to
> has earned the right to call himself smartt.
>
> -- help bot
Bot-
Just wanted to let you know that there are several folks out there
that are deciding not to write anything for Vignettes because of
attacks both online and via personal communications from many self
professed chess historians/experts. It'a a shame. But I guess it's
alot like the line from the Bob Marley song "I Shot The Sheriff" : "He
said 'Kill it before it grows" !
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
> described inhttp://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html
>
> This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
> Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
> on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.
>
> I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
> appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
> knew Raymond Weinstein.
>
> In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
> picture, not me.
>
> I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
> again.
>
> Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
> that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the photo in question did
come from a 1961 Chess Review, that does not of itself invalidate
Winter's copyright claim. Did Sloan consider the possibility that
Winter had purchased the rights to the photo from Chess Review?
While the predominant view among chessdom's many hacks is that
anything not nailed down is fair game, not everyone bases his ethics
on that conveniently self-serving premise.
On the subject of grabbing anything not nailed down, this article by
Edward Winter offers some telling examples:
Rob
On Jan 30, 7:04 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
> > described inhttp://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html
>
> > This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
> > Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
> > on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.
>
> > I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
> > appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
> > knew Raymond Weinstein.
>
> > In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
> > picture, not me.
>
> > I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
> > again.
>
> > Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
> > that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.
> While the predominant view among chessdom's many hacks is that
> anything not nailed down is fair game, not everyone bases his ethics
> on that conveniently self-serving premise.
> On the subject of grabbing anything not nailed down, this article by
> Edward Winter offers some telling examples:
>
Not sure of your point exactly... but game moves are not
copyrightable, only annotations. This is not significantly different
from song writing. "You cannot copyright iambic pentameter" was a
ruling in a case. Can you borrow "ideads,themes and premaces?.. yes!
Nothing wrong with that so long as it is modified in such a way as to
not be considered a simple rewrite.
Much about nothing as it pertains to chess writing IMO. More money
will be made on a bad country song than on the best chess literature.
So when someone complains about their "work" being damaged... and
trying to prove any financial basis for it you would be hard pressed
to justify that. They should be thankful that anyone read what they
wrote and found it interesting enough to use.
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 30, 9:47 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 7:04 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
> > > described inhttp://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html
>
> > > This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
> > > Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
> > > on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.
>
> > > I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
> > > appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
> > > knew Raymond Weinstein.
>
> > > In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
> > > picture, not me.
>
> > > I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
> > > again.
>
> > > Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
> > > that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.
>
> > While the predominant view among chessdom's many hacks is that
> > anything not nailed down is fair game, not everyone bases his ethics
> > on that conveniently self-serving premise.
> Not sure of your point exactly... but game moves are not
> copyrightable, only annotations.
Since the subject was photographs, I am even less sure of your point
than you are of mine.
Rob
On Jan 30, 10:03 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
> than you are of mine.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Sure. But the link you provided had game moves on it.
Taylor Kingston
> Sure. But the link you provided had game moves on it.
I provided that link ( http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/
copying.html ) not as an example of copyright violation with a
photograph, but as an example of the wholesale pilferage that passes
for "chess literature." Schiller's book did not, I suppose, violate
any copyright, but the fact that it was copied almost entirely from
another book makes his introduction highly misleading:
"The combinations include most of the most famous and well-known
examples, but **there are also many positions taken from *_rare and
unexplored literature_*.**" (emphasis added)
Trust me, Rob: "The Encyclopaedia of Chess Middlegames" is *_not_*
"rare and unexplored literature." That would be a bit like saying "the
little-known musical group, the Beatles." Schiller just saw a way to
make an easy buck, and helped himself hand-over-fist to someone else's
hard work, putting his own name on it.
Rob
On Jan 30, 11:54 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
>I provided that link (http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/
> copying.html ) not as an example of copyright violation with a
> photograph, but as an example of the wholesale pilferage that passes
> for "chess literature." Schiller's book did not, I suppose, violate
> any copyright, but the fact that it was copied almost entirely from
> another book makes his introduction highly misleading:
Taylor,We were discussing copyrights and you posted a link to a
critique of someone elses work that claims it was plagerized? Did the
publisher of the works enforce their rights? I think we are
complicating the discussion without need here. If this allegation were
true and there was any money to be made, trust me when I say there
would have been a lawsuit filed.
Which leads to another supposition. If there was a violation and the
publisher resufed to sue then I would suspect that they are implying
the material was worthless in that there was not sufficient economic
damage to make it important.(This is I suspect an entire new thread)
> "The combinations include most of the most famous and well-known
> examples, but **there are also many positions taken from *_rare and
> unexplored literature_*.**" (emphasis added)
> Trust me, Rob: "The Encyclopaedia of Chess Middlegames" is *_not_*
> "rare and unexplored literature." That would be a bit like saying "the
> little-known musical group, the Beatles." Schiller just saw a way to
> make an easy buck, and helped himself hand-over-fist to someone else's
> hard work, putting his own name on it.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Well,The Beatles backing of Tony Sheridan singing "My Bonnie" which
hit #5 on the German charts is obscure for sure. LOL
I think here it could be explained by looking at the qualifer
"many"( one might have said several or a few) in describing games. I
am not taking one side or the other in that fight, simply giving a
possible explaination.
samsloan
wrote:
The USCF bought the rights to Chess Review magazine in 1969. There is
no way that the USCF would ever sell those rights to Edward Winter.
However, the actual owner of the copyright was the photographer, who
ever that was. The copyright was not renewed and has therefore
expired.
Yet another example of Edward Winter and Taylor Kingston just blowing
steam.
Sam Sloan
Chess One
>
>
> On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
>> described inhttp://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html
>>
>> This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
>> Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
>> on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.
>>
>> I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
>> appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
>> knew Raymond Weinstein.
>>
>> In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
>> picture, not me.
>>
>> I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
>> again.
>>
>> Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
>> that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.
>
> Assuming,
Why suppose anything - does Winter hold copyright or not?
> for the sake of argument,
His pulbisher should argue for him - but I think that has not happened. So
let us instead argue the contrary, and Winter took material for which he
claimed copyright, but which has not been legally determined - only
complained about. I think that is the current state of the game.
> that the photo in question did
> come from a 1961 Chess Review, that does not of itself invalidate
> Winter's copyright claim. Did Sloan consider the possibility that
> Winter had purchased the rights to the photo from Chess Review?
Since all is supposition, perhaps he did perhaps he did not...
> While the predominant view among chessdom's many hacks is that
> anything not nailed down is fair game, not everyone bases his ethics
> on that conveniently self-serving premise.
But that is a leap based on three successive suppositions, no evidence being
presented for each - and if Winter could not claim a bid for lawful
copyright, he is, in Kingston's term alike 'many hacks', and proceeds on
'convenient self-serving premise'.
So, in order to determine if Winter is a self serving hack as Kingston
describes such common people; who holds copyright to this specific material,
or is it unknown. or is the material in the public domain?
How is any of those three known to be true?
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170162252.6...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 6:55 pm, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I received a letter from Chess Cafe virtually identical to the letter
> >> described inhttp://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/criminal.html
>
> >> This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
> >> Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
> >> on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.
>
> >> I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
> >> appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
> >> knew Raymond Weinstein.
>
> >> In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
> >> picture, not me.
>
> >> I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
> >> again.
>
> >> Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
> >> that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.
>
> > Assuming,
>
> Why suppose anything - does Winter hold copyright or not?
>
>
> His pulbisher [sic] should argue for him - but I think that has not happened.
Our Phil clearly has not been paying attention. His publisher did,
as attested for example by Sam Sloan, a witness whom Innes normally
finds quite credible.
> So
> let us instead argue the contrary, and Winter took material for which he
> claimed copyright, but which has not been legally determined - only
> complained about. I think that is the current state of the game.
And your basis for this is? I mean, besides your dislike of Winter,
ChessCafe, et al?
> > that the photo in question did
> > come from a 1961 Chess Review, that does not of itself invalidate
> > Winter's copyright claim. Did Sloan consider the possibility that
> > Winter had purchased the rights to the photo from Chess Review?
>
> Since all is supposition, perhaps he did perhaps he did not...
If you wish to rest a legal case on that kind of argument, I wish
you luck in court. You will need it.
> > While the predominant view among chessdom's many hacks is that
> > anything not nailed down is fair game, not everyone bases his ethics
> > on that conveniently self-serving premise.
>
> But that is a leap based on three successive suppositions, no evidence being
> presented for each - and if Winter could not claim a bid for lawful
> copyright, he is, in Kingston's term alike 'many hacks', and proceeds on
> 'convenient self-serving premise'.
>
> So, in order to determine if Winter is a self serving hack as Kingston
> describes such common people; who holds copyright to this specific material,
> or is it unknown. or is the material in the public domain?
>
> How is any of those three known to be true?
>
> Phil Innes
Our Phil, as always, argues for presumption of innocence only when
convenient, and as always, for presumption of guilt when it concerns
an adversary.
Chess One
>> So
>> let us instead argue the contrary, and Winter took material for which he
>> claimed copyright, but which has not been legally determined - only
>> complained about. I think that is the current state of the game.
>
> And your basis for this is?
My basis for what is?
> I mean, besides your dislike of Winter,
> ChessCafe, et al?
My basis is to change the subject from what is?
>> > that the photo in question did
>> > come from a 1961 Chess Review, that does not of itself invalidate
>> > Winter's copyright claim. Did Sloan consider the possibility that
>> > Winter had purchased the rights to the photo from Chess Review?
>>
>> Since all is supposition, perhaps he did perhaps he did not...
>
> If you wish to rest a legal case on that kind of argument, I wish
> you luck in court. You will need it.
I don't wish to 'rest' any case - I am asking why Kingston supposes
something, rather than another thing, as usual he spins and doesn't
answer...
>> > While the predominant view among chessdom's many hacks is that
>> > anything not nailed down is fair game, not everyone bases his ethics
>> > on that conveniently self-serving premise.
>>
>> But that is a leap based on three successive suppositions, no evidence
>> being
>> presented for each - and if Winter could not claim a bid for lawful
>> copyright, he is, in Kingston's term alike 'many hacks', and proceeds on
>> 'convenient self-serving premise'.
>>
>> So, in order to determine if Winter is a self serving hack as Kingston
>> describes such common people; who holds copyright to this specific
>> material,
>> or is it unknown. or is the material in the public domain?
>>
>> How is any of those three known to be true?
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> Our Phil, as always, argues for presumption of innocence only when
> convenient, and as always, for presumption of guilt when it concerns
> an adversary.
Kingston, as usual, argues that Winter is the Golden Virgin, and can do no
wrong - when asked for any evidence of what he supposes in 3 cases, he
doesn't answer.
Instead he takes my question about how he knows something by pretending that
I suppose ['argue'] something else, and includes the word 'adversary'.
Vague and elusive, no? But he was so sure before.
And as usual Kingston presents Winter as correct with no evidence that he is
correct - and should he be correct, how would we know that from Kingston's
writing?
PI
parrt...@cs.com
Over the years, there was an enormous amount of
theft from the Chess Life photo morgue. Countless
photos that I saw later simply disappeared. Some of
them ended up being "copyrighted" by Edward Winter.
One can simply leaf through old CLs, old Chess
Life newspapers and Chess Review and find many evident
examples of false "copyrights" by Winter. Some of the
photos may still remain in the CL photo morgue, which
means that they were scanned off old issues of Chess
Review and/or Chess Life, etc.
My comments pertain to the "Winter Collection"
-- how pompous, really -- as it was a couple of years
back. The stinker may have cleaned it up a bit since.
I would not know about that.
Edward Winter and ChessCafe have claimed
copyright to many photos that are, in truth,
in the public domain or owned by the USCF. Several
photos in the preposterous "Winter Collection" were
in the USCF archives. Many of the photographers of the
classic Chess Review photos (owned by the USCF) are
long since dead, and their estates obviously untraceable.
So why are Winter and the Cafe claiming
ownership? I figure that there is a legal doctrine
here along the lines of egress and ingress. If they
can claim copyright and have others observe it, then
perhaps they can claim ownership eventually. Something
like that. I don't insist on this particular explanation, it's
just a guess.
NMnot Taylor Kingston's attempt to excuse
attempted thievery is par for his course.
parrt...@cs.com
Greg Kennedy (help bog) is right about as often as a broken clock. The
example he
wants to see was already cited by Sam Sloan in this thread.
> This letter claimed that Edward Winter has a copyright on a picture of
> Raymond Weinstein published on my website and, by posting this picture
> on my website I had violated Winter's copyright.
> I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
> appeared in a 1961 issue of Chess Review magazine. I also personally
> knew Raymond Weinstein.
> In short, it was Winter who was violating a copyright by copying this
> picture, not me.
> I never heard from Edward Winter or from ChessCafe on this subject
> again.
> Just because Edward Winter scans pictures found in old chess magazines,
> that does not give him a copyright to those pictures.
Mike Murray wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2007 00:17:18 -0800, "help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> One can simply leaf through old CLs, old Chess
> >> Life newspapers and Chess Review and find many evident
> >> examples of false "copyrights" by Winter.
>
> > Here's an idea: specify an example, and boldly proclaim that
> >EW was not the photographer!
>
> >> Several
> >> photos in the preposterous "Winter Collection" were
> >> in the USCF archives. Many of the photographers of the
> >> classic Chess Review photos (owned by the USCF) are
> >> long since dead, and their estates obviously untraceable.
>
> > This paragraph leaves open the possibility that EW was the
> >photographer;
>
> Would the bot hazard a guess as to Winter's age ?
>
> > Another "par" is Larry Parr's idiocy in attempting to pretend that
> >Taylor Kingston was no NM, simply because his OTB results did not
> >match his earlier results in correspondence play. The fact remains
> >that even if below "2300+", so long as he was not below 2200, TK
> >was/is a National Master.
>
> Upon completing the syllogism, the bot may find it's on the "wrong"
> side in this ancient dispute.
Taylor Kingston
> Over the years, there was an enormous amount of
> theft from the Chess Life photo morgue. Countless
> photos that I saw later simply disappeared. Some of
> them ended up being "copyrighted" by Edward Winter.
> Edward Winter and ChessCafe have claimed
> copyright to many photos that are, in truth,
> in the public domain or owned by the USCF. Several
> photos in the preposterous "Winter Collection" were
> in the USCF archives.
Some specific examples would be helpful in proving this point,
Larry. Also it would be helpful if you checked with Winter to see on
what he bases his copyright claims.
> NMnot Taylor Kingston's attempt to excuse
> attempted thievery is par for his course.
Our Larry, as usual, misrepresents my position. I do not know
whether Winter's copyright claims to various photos are or are not
legally valid. However, certain posters (e.g. Sloan, Mitchell, and
Parr) have simply assumed, with no apparent factual basis, that they
are not valid. This strikes me as illogical.
Furthermore, to use this glib assumption as an excuse to help one's
self to Winter's collection, or to encourage others to help
themselves, strikes me as irresponsible. A bit like saying "See that
car over there? I think the fellow who claims to own it really
doesn't. Therefore it's OK for us to drive off with it."
Or "See that 'no trespassing' sign? The guy who claims to own this
land has never shown me any deed of ownership. So it's OK for us to go
hunting here."
Or "Boy, that's a pretty woman. That guy said she's his wife, but
I've never seen their marriage license. Let's grab her and have a good
time."
Imperfect analogies, but still apt. My point is that it is prudent
and proper to respect a claim of ownership unless one has definite
factual knowledge that it's false. Haven't seen one relevant fact
presented in this whole thread.
Rob
wrote:
> However, certain posters (e.g. Sloan, Mitchell, and
> Parr) have simply assumed, with no apparent factual basis, that they
> are not valid.
I did not assert that they were not valid. You are incorrect Taylor.
>This strikes me as illogical.
> Furthermore, to use this glib assumption as an excuse to help one's
> self to Winter's collection, or to encourage others to help
> themselves, strikes me as irresponsible.
What proof does Chess Cafe require as to ownership of a copyright? Do
the require photocopies for the applications for copyright or do they
simply accept an email from that individual as proof of ownership?
> A bit like saying "See that
> car over there? I think the fellow who claims to own it really
> doesn't. Therefore it's OK for us to drive off with it."
It isnt like that at all.
> Or "See that 'no trespassing' sign? The guy who claims to own this
> land has never shown me any deed of ownership. So it's OK for us to go
> hunting here."
It isnt like that either.
> Or "Boy, that's a pretty woman. That guy said she's his wife, but
> I've never seen their marriage license. Let's grab her and have a good
> time."
And it certainly isnt like that. That you would use a situation like
that is disturbing due to it's subconcious subjudication of a woman to
sexual property and nothing more.
> Imperfect analogies, but still apt.
Imperfect, yes they are... you would have done better to have spent
more time and produced some that didn't cast aspersions upon yourself.
> My point is that it is prudent
> and proper to respect a claim of ownership unless one has definite
> factual knowledge that it's false. Haven't seen one relevant fact
> presented in this whole thread.
Sam provided facts.. I simply tried to cast light into the murky
waters habitated by professional "chess historian" remoras.
Paul Rubin
> > > I wrote back pointing out that this particular of Raymond Weinstein had
> However, the actual owner of the copyright was the photographer, who
> ever that was. The copyright was not renewed and has therefore
> expired.
Unfortunately a 1961 copyright would still have been in force at the
time of the 1978 copyright act which effectively made copyrights never
expire.
Paul Rubin
> Imperfect analogies, but still apt. My point is that it is prudent
> and proper to respect a claim of ownership unless one has definite
> factual knowledge that it's false.
I'd like to see some evidence presented by the claimant of ownership.
If I tell you I own the Brooklyn bridge and you have to pay me a toll
every you cross it, are you gonna pay without seeing proof from me?
samsloan
Apparently Edward Winter is claiming that by scanning a picture out of
an old chess magazine, he has acquired a copyright of that picture.
That is not the law. A copyright starts from the date of original
creation or publication. Copying or re-publishing the same document
does not extend the copyright date.
I suggest that you spend some time reading. http://www.copyright.gov .
Sam Sloan
parrt...@cs.com
<The last I heard was that TK's exaggeration was in the realm of
< 50 points. That puts his "2300+" down somewhere in the middle
2200s, which is an NM rating.> -- Help Bog
The broken clock strikes again. Greg Kennedy seldom gets his facts
straight..
Taylor Kingston inflated his rating by about 500 points -- from 1800
OTB to 2300+.
Sam Sloan challenged the copyright claim of Edward Winter to a photo
of Raymond Weinstein on Sam's website and refused to remove it after
receiving a warning to do so. Thus Mr. Winter was the one who backed
down -- not Mr. Sloan.
Looking forward to the next piece of disinformation by our bot from
Indiana.
help bot wrote:
> On Jan 31, 10:47 am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
> > On 31 Jan 2007 00:17:18 -0800, "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> One can simply leaf through old CLs, old Chess
> > >> Life newspapers and Chess Review and find many evident
> > >> examples of false "copyrights" by Winter.
> > > Here's an idea: specify an example, and boldly proclaim that
> > >EW was not the photographer!
> > >> Several
> > >> photos in the preposterous "Winter Collection" were
> > >> in the USCF archives. Many of the photographers of the
> > >> classic Chess Review photos (owned by the USCF) are
> > >> long since dead, and their estates obviously untraceable.
> > > This paragraph leaves open the possibility that EW was the
> > >photographer;
> >
> > Would the bot hazard a guess as to Winter's age ?
>
> Okay: I haphazardly guess that EW is, oh, say 50 years old.
> The "reasoning" behind this guess is that the guy is dead boring,
> and a petty pedant. I expect younger men to take *years* to
> decay into something quite so dull. :>D
>
> My point was simply that LP's wording was such as to attempt
> to leave a multitude of escape holes in case his accusations didn't
> quite pan out. Of course, if any of them did pan out, LP would
> gladly claim "you heard it here first"!
> What is lacking is anything of real substance -- but then, that's
> just parr for the course, as we have seen.
>
>
> > > Another "par" is Larry Parr's idiocy in attempting to pretend that
> > >Taylor Kingston was no NM, simply because his OTB results did not
> > >match his earlier results in correspondence play. The fact remains
> > >that even if below "2300+", so long as he was not below 2200, TK
> > >was/is a National Master.
> >
> > Upon completing the syllogism, the bot may find it's on the "wrong"
> > side in this ancient dispute.
>
> What -- you got a new conversion? The last I heard was that TK's
> exaggeration was in the realm of < 50 points. That puts his "2300+"
> down somewhere in the middle 2200s, which is an NM rating.
> Compare and contrast to Phillip Innes, who flatly lied when claiming
> to be at 2450, nearly an IM. Why bother mentioning IM Innes? Simply
> because LP *revels* in accepting his blatant lie, while at the same
> time
> attempting to pretend that TK deliberately misled everyone by merely
> mentioning his correspondence rating, without specifically stating it
> was earned in correspondence play.
>
> As to your comment above, I am aware that -- at least for the USCF
> --
> when a current rating drops below 2200, the player is no longer a
> master, but a piddly expert (or worse!). Without floors, a GM could
> conceivably drop to a Class E. A world champion, to one tough Class
> B
> player. (Sorry, Mr. Spassky -- I cannot accept your kindly offer of a
> draw,
> because that would cost me 15 rating points. Prepare to meet your
> maker!)
>
> As we have seen, the real issue was not even related to any
> technicality regarding titles or ratings, which was simply a typical
> LP spin job.
>
> -- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
<Also it would be helpful if you checked with Winter to see on what he
bases his copyright claims.> -- Taylor Kingston
At the time I wrote a long series on Edward
Winter and how he goes about lying, I sent him
communications asking various questions. He never
responded.
Obviously, the man does not wish to communicate
with me, and quite frankly, I have no desire to renew
attempts to get answers from the man.
Since Taylor Kingston has played the role of a
Winterian apologist for so many years and is in
touch with his idol, he would be the natural candidate
to question Mr. Winter about his claim to copyrights.
Rob
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree. Since he frequently writes for CC he could also answer the
question as to what proof CC requires from writers concerning
copyright proof. On this he has remained silent. Why? Could it be that
there are no standards?
Rob
parrt...@cs.com
Dear Rob and Phil,
My point is this: Winter himself would not
claim that he shutterbugged vast numbers of the photos
in an archive he had online several years back. He
claimed that before using the photos, one had to get
permission from him.
Now, then, here is another possibility: this
man may have retouched some of the photos (knocking
out scratches) and may feel that those using his
improved photos in a non-deleterious sense ought to
get his permission. (This possibility does not make
much sense to me, but it exists in at least a
descriptive verbal form.)
My recollection is that the photos in Winter's
supposed archive, several of which were in the Chess
Life photo morgue, had not been reworked by Winter.
But I don't insist on this point.
One way to end the debate is to look at the
so-called Winter archive and look for photos in the
old CRs, which CL definitely owned as of 1969, when
they were purchased by the USCF. Okay, here's one
photo in my memory that can be found in an old CR,
that was in the CL morgue and that was, I believe in
the Winter archive: a photo of Reuben Fine disguised
as a hillbilly in a gag during one of Al Horowitz's
transcontinental tours.
If I am right, we have nailed at least one
Winterian lie. There were, in truth, many other such
examples when I checked several years back.
I will contact a certain person in a position to
speak on this subject also and let you know what the
person has to say.
Wait, wait. Now that I think about it, there
were photos in the claimed Winter archive from the old
ACB, which are unquestionably in the public domain.
Hermann Helms died and his belongings and records
simply disappeared. Catherine Sullivan destroyed much
of his archive, and what survived was in the old
issues of the ACB. Hermann had one child who died
young of a heart attack, and no immediate living relatives.
Okay, then, will someone check out the reputed
Winter archive for a photo of Reuben Fine seated at a
chess board along with the other chess team members of
the College of the City of New York. This was back in
December 1931 and the photo appeared in the ACB. If
Winter is claiming a copyright here, we have yet
another arrant lie.
I am doing this all from memory, and someone
Stateside with their old ACBs and CRs at hand (mine
are in storage in New York), can check out the two
above examples.
We can undoubtedly work up a long list of
Winterian lies re copyright.
Yours, Larry Parr
parrt...@cs.com
Thanks go to Greg Kennedy for bringing up once
again NMnot Taylor Kingston's claim to be 2300+ Elo.
Mr. Kingston made the claim straightforwardly
without any irony. He claimed that he was a strong
master, and he never mentioned that the rating was a
reference to postal chess.
I am content to let the thousands of readers of
this forum decide for themselves: when someone baldly
writes that he is 2300+ Elo what is the assumption that
most chess people reading the statement will make?
Answer: the person is talking about OTB play, unless
otherwise specified. Walk into a club just virtually anywhere
and claim to be 2300+ Elo and I would contend that hardly
anyone would imagine you were talking about postal chess.
NMnot Kingston did not correct his statement
until after Sam Sloan and others outed the lie. He
defended it a long time until someone started calling
it "the horsefeathers defense."
It is important to note that our NMnot initially
offered justifications that Greg Kennedy would choose
to forget because the words from NMnot's penmouth were
different from the current attempts by Help Bog to whitewash
the plain lie.
Our NMnot said that he told the lie because he
knew that Sam Sloan would wildly accuse him of lying
and would not realize that postal and OTB ratings were
on a different scale. Thereby, you see, Sam, would
discredit himself. As for yours truly, NMnot said
that while I would know that the scales were
different, I would nonetheless back Sam by using a
different angle, thereby discrediting myself. Etc.
NMnot's initial attempts at exculpatory
statements featured the kind of childish extension of
lies that junior high school kids typically dream up
before the lie utterly explodes in their face.
The current line, which Greg Kennedy offers, is
that NMnot really was this master and that most
chessplayers reading a plain avowal of being 2300+
Elo would also understand it to mean postal play.
Not only is this stuff NOT what NMnot initially
tried to offer by way of excusing his moment of
weakness when he lied because his ego was bleeding.
It also is evidently junk that Greg himself does not buy.
Still, if we must, we will reprise NMnot's
original lie and his attempts to excuse the lie. And
if we must, we will compare the statements with Greg's
later attempts (he was never much good at checking out
sources before posting).
Yours, Larry Parr
politi...@gmail.com
world champion of Chinese chess, did Dato's Sophist either of these
claims as a "plain avowal"?
Vince Hart
If Parr truly was content to let thousands of readers decide the
significance of Kingston's failure to specify correspondence chess, he
would have quit beating this dead horse years ago since thousands of
readers have shown utter indifference to the issue. Moreover, he
would not invent a mythical "someone" who started calling it the
"horsefeathers defense" when Parr himself was responsible for that
phrase.
politi...@gmail.com
wrote:
> When Sam Sloan claimed to be a former rated chess master or the 1988
> world champion of Chinese chess, did Dato's Sophist either of these
> claims as a "plain avowal"?
oops: s/b "....did Dato's Sophist *interpret* either..."
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1170425453.5...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> WINTER'S BOGUS CLAIMS
>
> Dear Rob and Phil,
>
> My point is this:
Snipped!
Dear Larry
How dare you mention your festuring personal archive once again!
Dang-nabbit! It was just 5 years ago since the last mention, and my kind
offer to rescure it from damp, starving cock-roaches, rats,
sewer-crocodiles, and certain or certainly lawyers.
> I am doing this all from memory, and someone
> Stateside with their old ACBs and CRs at hand (mine
> are in storage in New York), can check out the two
> above examples.
Probably useless by now - the ink fading, paper yellowing, crumbling,
becoming so much dust & constellated motes- and for why! (Because I am too
cheap to buy my own books is completely beside the point.) Will it fit
inside the smaller u-haul truck, or even in a car if I throw the kids junk
out?
Since this record is of potential National Importance, I shall only charge
you cost for collecting it, plus modest storage here in good wood-stove
heated conditions in Vermont - surely a snip compared with NY prices?
You will please reply in the affirmative to these general though not entire
set of conditions and charges, or not mention the subject again until 2012.
> We can undoubtedly work up a long list of
> Winterian lies re copyright.
I see that our Kingston says he believes Winter but doesn't write to him
:)
I may in fact be his more frequent correspondent, and last encountered the
Saturnine One attempting to mine Adorjan for dirt
--which is rather comic, considering all--
What Kingston understands about copyright necessities, especially removal
from the public domain, is left unknown, his views being obscurred by his
words. Chesscafe are equally silent on this issue, since a pro-forma and
legal looking letter puts the frightners on challenges, and inexpensively
too - though inconclusively to any fact of the matter of what is decent
legal honest or truthful.
Phil Innes
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
Rob
> On Feb 1, 1:25 pm, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 2:02 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 6:50 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 6:31 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 31, 2:57 pm, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Parr) have simply assumed, with no apparent factual basis, that
>
> > > > > I made no such claim.
>
> > > > Rob, your memory is quite short. I quote from your post of 25
> > > > January, 2007:
>
> > > > "Chess Diner owned it? This is your contention? LOL"
> > > > Trying to deny having said something on usenet is like trying to
> > > > bluff in poker with cards you've already shown.
>
> > > Taylor, Put on your glasses! It was a QUESTION not a STATEMENT . Do
> > > You know the difference?????
>
> > Jeez, Rob, but your arguments are pathetic. As you and everyone else
> > here knows, "LOL" stands for "laughing out loud" and is not a
> > question. You were obviously saying "I think this claim of ownership
> > is laughable."- Hide quoted text -
>
- Show quoted text -
>
in any logical progression. You seem to practic thing like Kerowac
writes. Train of conciousness is not an effective communication tool
unless you are trying to obscure the original topic of discussion.
You
have an annoying tendency to deny your mistakes. Look. You misread
what I said and we simply trying to include me in a general attack on
others. Just admit that and get over it. You are fooling no one.
Admit
your error and then return to the topic if you please.
-
- Show quoted text -
Taylor,
just answer the question, please.
Rob
parrt...@cs.com
<Furthermore, I am no more "in touch" with Edward Winter than you
are. He's just a guy whose books I like.> -- Taylor Kingston
Really? That's news to me. Mr. 2300+ Elo (and Louie Blair) have been
Mr. Winter's most ardent supporters here for lo these many years.
In a letter to the editor of Chess Life (December 2001, page 7) GM
Larry Evans noted the close alliance of Kingston and Winter when they
both worked for ChessCafe:
"As for his anguished, puerile attacks on Larry Parr, it is the best
proof possible that the former Chess Life editor dropped a
thermonuclear device on Mr. Kingston's hero Edward Winter."
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Feb 2, 3:20 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
> > CHECK WITH WINTER
> >
> > <Also it would be helpful if you checked with Winter to see on what he
> > bases his copyright claims.> -- Taylor Kingston
> >
> > Since Taylor Kingston has played the role of a
> > Winterian apologist for so many years and is in
> > touch with his idol, he would be the natural candidate
> > to question Mr. Winter about his claim to copyrights.
>
> Larry, when you make an accusation, the burden of proof is on you. I
> realize that you grant presumption of innocence only to your friends,
> and everyone else gets presumption of guilt, but don't expect me to do
> your dirty work for you.
> Furthermore, I am no more "in touch" with Edward Winter than you
> are. He's just a guy whose books I like.
parrt...@cs.com
>Our Larry has been a raving loony on the subject of Edward Winter since at least 1987, when Winter wrote about Parr's brief tenure and unmourned dismissal as editor of Chess Life.> -- Taylor Kingston
So, then, unlike with LBJ -- a presidential candidate -- NMnot
Taylor Kingston has been in contact with Edward Winter, though not all
that much in recent
years, he tells us. Hence the LBJ analogy was yet lie.
On the other hand, we do have a chance to nail down quite a few
more Winterian lies re the copyright business. I pointed out a few
photos, and perhaps others can do the same.
If Sam Sloan is correct, then Winter has attempted a real scam in the
tradition that an Winterian apologist like our NMnot Kingston can
appreciate.
If it is copyright by scan, then Winter must be saying that Chess Life
purchasing the photos in 1969 that he scanned and reprinted without CL
permission and then
for which claimed ownership -- well, it boggles.
Looks to me as if Fast Eddie owes the USCF some neat dough. Will our
Executive Board pursue the matter?
Ahhhhhhhh, no. But I hope Sam does.
Meanwhile, I have pointed out precise photos that were in the
Winter archive that also appeared in Chess Review, a photo source now
owned by Chess Life.
No response will be forthcoming from our NMnot Kingston.
Certainly, no research of his own on the matter, exposing his
confrere.
parrt...@cs.com
< I don't recall the term "Elo" being included in TK's original,
unadulterated claim to being a decent chess player; perhaps this is
LP's last ditch attempt to salvage something -- anything -- from his
longwinded series of lies about TK.> -- Greg Kennedy
Greg Kennedy has once more demonstrated his research skills. Let's
refresh his memory with the exact claim made by Mr. 2300+ Elo On 5 Jun
2005 17:23:27 -0700
<tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on
the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great
player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as
I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."
Taylor Kingston, Jun 9 2006, 4:47 am wrote:
<Greg, there was no "drop." Over the last 25 years, I've never been
much above or below a USCF rating of 1800 OTB. My OTB peak was 1853,
back around 1994. However, postal chess had several differences that
allowed me to get to master level.>
Jun 9 2005, 8:51 pm
From: s...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:51:19 GMT
Local: Thurs, Jun 9 2005 8:51 pm
Subject: Taylor Kingston caught lying again, says that his Elo
rating was 2300+
This posting has generated more than one hundred comments in less
than
a week because Taylor Kingston has a published USCF rating of 1811
and
it never happens that a 2300 player drops to 1811.
help bot wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:14 pm, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
> > > Really? That's news to me. Mr. 2300+ Elo
>
> I don't recall the term "Elo" being included in TK's original,
> unadulterated
> claim to being a decent chess player; perhaps this is LP's last ditch
> attempt to salvage something -- anything -- from his longwinded series
> of
> lies about TK.
>
> > > (and Louie Blair) have been
> > > Mr. Winter's most ardent supporters here for lo these many years.
>
> I also fail to recall anything written by Dr. Blair which would seem
> to
> "support" Edward Winter. Perhaps my memory is failing, but it seems
> like all Dr. Blair ever did was point out some of LP's obvious
> blunders.
>
> For me, in order to be considered a true supporter of EW, it would
> require some sort of broad praise of his overall work, not merely
> shooting down unreasoned attacks by a third party (who apparently
> has grave difficulties with rational thinking).
>
>
> > Our Larry seems to imagine that support requires communication. I
> > dunno -- I supported LBJ over Goldwater in 1964, but I never so much
> > as sent him a postcard.
>
> Why, pray tell?
>
> > And of course Larry has always tried to foist the idea that Winter
> > controls some gigantic, malevolent, international anti-Larry
> > conspiracy, with myself, Blair and others as his puppets.
>
> I think I remember seeing this one; was it "Dr.No", starring Sean
> Connery? And was the villain after gold, or did he merely wish to
> control the entire world?
>
> > > In a letter to the editor of Chess Life (December 2001, page 7) GM
> > > Larry Evans noted the close alliance of Kingston and Winter when they
> > > both worked for ChessCafe:
> >
> > > "As for his anguished, puerile attacks on Larry Parr, it is the best
> > > proof possible that the former Chess Life editor dropped a
> > > thermonuclear device on Mr. Kingston's hero Edward Winter."
>
> These petty ego battles between the two are almost embarrassing
> to watch. Somebody needs to get a grip. [Mr. Winter may well have
> been overdoing his side of things as a strange sort of humor, but even
> if so, there are many readers who would take what he wrote seriously;
> in which case, it can only be described as character assassination.
> Now what sort of man would go and "assassinate" a popular old GM
> like Larry Evans just because he can't spell or recall exact dates?]
>
> > Our Larry has been a raving loony on the subject of Edward Winter
> > since at least 1987, when Winter wrote about Parr's brief tenure and
> > unmourned dismissal as editor of Chess Life:
> >
> > "On 10th October the Policy Board of the United States Chess
> > Federation decided by a vote of 7-1 to dismiss the editor of Chess
> > Life, Mr. Larry Parr.
> > "On 13th October the British Chess Federation accepted the
> > resignation of Mr. Raymond Keene as the BCF's Publicity Director and
> > FIDE Delegate.
> > "Neither occurrence was premature."
>
> That may well indicate that EW was happy with these decisions, but
> it leaves the field wide open as to *why*. Were EW's regular readers
> aware of the issues behind this comment? I have (now) seen the many
> criticisms of GM Keene's "work", but what exactly was his beef with
> Larry Parr? Was it just his automatic defenses of GM Evans? Did
> Edward Winter take issue with LP's editorial work in the pages of CL?
>
> -- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
With friends like Help Bog, Mr. 2300+ Elo doesn't need enemies.
help bot wrote:
> On Feb 3, 6:29 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>
> > <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on
> > the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great
> > player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as
> > I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."
>
> Ah, so now it would seem that Taylor Kingston was not even talking
> about his average performance, or chess "strength", but rather his
> *peak*
> rating -- which as everyone knows, is always significantly higher.
> This
> means that, at his *peak*, TK thought that he was "2300+", which as
> some expert later explained here, actually converted to something
> around
> 2250. Now, if we were to arbitrarily decide that a peak rating is,
> say, 200
> points above the mean, or true strength, then Larry Parr's nonsense
> might
> begin to have some semblance of meaning, almost. For in this case,
> Mr.
> Kingston could theoretically be "demoted" from the NM category to
> Expert (AKA "NM-not"). But for this variation to work, we would all
> have
> to close our eyes and pretend (as Larry Parr so often does) that we
> didn't
> see the word "peak" quoted above.
>
> In sum, we are left with only an empty lie: LP's charge that TK
> specified
> his "2300+" as pertaining to OTB play, which he did not. Sorry,
> Charlie.
>
> -----------------------
>
> Again, on the same subject of playing strength, right now I am
> playing
> several games at a Web site called RedHotPawn, and it is in a very
> similar format to correspondence play. As far as I can see, not one
> of
> my (hapless?) opponents is utilizing any computer help. In fact, two
> games are already over. Here is the *longer* of these two games:
>
> 1.e4 c5
>
> 2.Nf3 e6
>
> 3.d4 cd
>
> 4.Nd4 Nf6
>
> 5.Nc3 Bb4
>
> 6.Bd2 O-O
>
> 7.Qf3 d5
>
> 8.e5 Bxc3
>
> 9.Bxc3 Ne4
>
> 10.Bb4 Qg5
>
> 11.Bxf8 Q-d2++
>
> 0-1
>
> -- help bot
Chess One
> So, then, unlike with LBJ -- a presidential candidate -- NMnot
> Taylor Kingston has been in contact with Edward Winter, though not all
> that much in recent
> years, he tells us. Hence the LBJ analogy was yet lie.
RESEARCH REVEALS RECHERCHÉ RAKE*
No, no contact with Winter I know of since 2002, where, er, the possibly
fictious dis-avowable smoke&mirror files reveal distinct contact! And I bet
Larry, you can't guess what the subject was - clue, not LBJ!
BUT - old e-mails are hilarious! While ensuring that the dis-avowable files
are as I remember them, I see I received a rebuke from a Mr. Shambat, on the
question I posed: "Ilya, have you seen the Tsvetayeva trans. by D. H.
Thomas? [author White Hotel]."
Who then admonished me: "Please do not cross-post to talk.bizarre".
-------
And a strange synchronicity, I found another note re Robert Caro - the
Princeton Historian - of whom the family of LBJ could not have been amused.
And since I am on a roll here, can anyone advise me further about:
-------
>> has ever heard of Nicholas Roscannon, Cornish recusant of the late
> > 1500s. But it was an interesting essay.
>
> The 4 college library have no references to NR. Was he "Cornish Rebellion"
> 1549 ?
>
It's been a long time since I read the book, but I think that NR was much
later, perhaps in late Elizabethan/Jacobean times.
---------
And of Cornish women!
> This is a bit earlier and amusing, 1450, French fleet forced its way into
> Fowey Haven and ... the wife of Thomas Trevry the second with her men
> 'repellid the French out of her house in her house-bondes absense'.
--------
This is a bit of correspondance with Tim Hanke, who wigged someone far too
hard [who had a tender ego] that he was the Revd. Qusz, but I think I
fizzled it out an no one sued any one.
-------
And then I'm afraid I practiced on several people :(
The first was to convince an historian about some 'famous but hard to get'
cat books by another famous historian - which he eventually discovered was
pulling his leg, and almost forgave me,
And a chess joke played on Sam Sloan!
> Admitted, I am not quite
> so bad as Sam Sloan who last week bought the Botvinnik is Cornish story,
> orig. name PenBottallack.
Good work for one week - which ended on this sober e-mail note:-
Phil, I don't know if anyone has remarked on the NIC
issue (2002/Number3) which includes a message from
Jim Eade? I think a fair summary of his point is that
"Ilymzhinov clearly loves chess, and he's put his money
where his mouth is."
a curious sentiment. many brutal and despicable
dictators financed Olympic games, for example. does
that make them OK? and is it "his money"? really?
---
Phil Innes
*into English as RAKEHELL, orig: [Sw.] RAKA [Icel.] and RAEKEL;
[Dan] -REIKA=to wander
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1170502148.9...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> THANKS AGAIN TO THE BOT
>
> < I don't recall the term "Elo" being included in TK's original,
> unadulterated claim to being a decent chess player; perhaps this is
> LP's last ditch attempt to salvage something -- anything -- from his
> longwinded series of lies about TK.> -- Greg Kennedy
>
> Greg Kennedy has once more demonstrated his research skills. Let's
> refresh his memory with the exact claim made by Mr. 2300+ Elo On 5 Jun
> 2005 17:23:27 -0700
I think something else is demonstrated, since Greg Kennedy /does/ appear to
have taken the 2300EL) as OTB. In fact he has written on this subject
numerous times, and still [!] thinks so.
> <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
> >Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on
> the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great
> player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as
> I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."
>
> Taylor Kingston, Jun 9 2006, 4:47 am wrote:
>
> <Greg, there was no "drop." Over the last 25 years, I've never been
> much above or below a USCF rating of 1800 OTB. My OTB peak was 1853,
> back around 1994. However, postal chess had several differences that
> allowed me to get to master level.>
So how can Greg Kennedy /still/ say that his understanding is confused and
Larry Parr is making it all up? Maybe his memory is bad, but, since he is
disinclined to do any research himself and must rely on memory - is this the
fault of other people?
Here is my memory:-
Taylor Kingston actually achieved a performance rating of almost 2000 in a
New England OTB tournament in 2002! He may or may not remember writing to me
about it.
What's true? - depends who's askin'
So what has all this to do with copyright? Nothing, except that Taylor
Kingston always springs to the defence of chesscafe, whether he knows what's
true or not - AND - scolds other people for making inquiries.
In this case he raised the flag around Winter's copyright, and a week later
admitted he didn't know if it actually was Winter's by right. This did not
stop him from telling others /they/ should do some research to prove...
while of course, Lord Kingston needs not dirty himself with research and
knowledge as such, to make his own determinations and recommendations (to
other people).
The mere suggestion of his own sort-of rating is enough to confuse Kennedy
to this day, so where do we start to believe his recommendations when it
comes to copyright - another over-stressed and completely under-researched
subject?
Phil Innes
parrt...@cs.com
<Judging from this paragraph, it seems clear that the real issue was
not the term "Elo", nor the term "NM", but the term "weak", as in a
weak chess player.> -- Bot
Greg Kennedy brought up NMnot Taylor Kingston's lie about being
2300+ ELO. To be sure, Greg was acting as a friend, defending NMnot;
but we may be
sure that our NMnot wishes that his friend would shaddup his keyboard.
Here, then, for the record, is the bald, straightforward claim
that NMnot Kingston made when claiming to be a very strong master:
"Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on
the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great
player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as
I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than 'weak.'"
Greg Bot is now doing his beached whale routine. He just told
us that he could not recollect NMnot ever claiming an Elo of 2300+ and
we then
posted the original lie.
Let us, then, review the history of attempts to explain away
the lie, beginning with NMnot's initial attempts.
NMnot did not have the stomach to come up with some of Greg's
twists and turns. Nor would they have sounded very convincing at the
time, given the context
of his lie.
Sam Sloan had been lambasting NMnot Kingston mercilessly on the
subject of playing strength, challenging the poor man to a match --
the same kind
of battle that has had such an unhinging effect on poor Bill Brock
(politikalhack).
NMnot tried the proud man contumely routine. He could not
accommodate the odors and the presence in the same room of Mr. Sloan.
Hence no match. That kind of thing. Etc.
Then, as pressure continued, came the cold lie about being
2300+ ELO.
Sam immediately went for NMnot's throat, and the latter had to
then offer an explanation, though only after Sam disclosed his over-
the-board rating.
NMnot argued that he knew all along that Sam would challenge
the lie and that he had calculated that Sam would not know the
difference between postal
and OTB ratings. Heh, heh, heh. As for this writer, NMnot argued
that I would know the difference but would discredit myself by
supporting Sam's attack.
There you have it. NMnot embroidered an extension of his
initial lie from weakness and pique with the kind of stuff that junior
high kids make up when trying to retrieve a hopeless lie.
Now, Greg Kennedy offered a different justification than the
ones invented by NMnot Kingston. He simply denied what NMnot wrote,
trying to argue that a group of chess people when told that someone is
2300+ strength would conclude that the statement referred to ... well,
postal chess!
We are content that the thousands of readers on this forum
judge for themselves.
Our Greg has apparently abandoned his earlier defense and is
now arguing that the subject of the lie was about being weak rather
than making the bald,
evident claimed of being 2300+ Elo.
We are enjoying the course of this rehash. Possibly, even Greg
is having fun.
As for NMnot? We are certain what he must be thinking about
having to suffer fools for friends.
Yours, Larry Parr
Rob
Rob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It has been since Friday, Feb 2nd that I last posed this question to
Mr. Kingston and still it goes unanswered. Perhaps I should write to
Hannon Russell and ask him?
Taylor Kingston
> I agree. Since he frequently writes for CC he could also answer the
> question as to what proof CC requires from writers concerning
> copyright proof. On this he has remained silent. Why? Could it be
> that there are no standards?
> Rob-
>
> It has been since Friday, Feb 2nd that I last posed this question to
> Mr. Kingston and still it goes unanswered. Perhaps I should write to
> Hannon Russell and ask him?
If you want an authoritative answer, yes. I certainly can't give you
one. If you do write to him, I would suggest that you spell his name
correctly.
I do recall one situation I was marginally involved in where
copyright standards came up. Russell Enterprises was considering
publishing a book by a couple of Scandinavian writers, on Nimzovitch
as I recall. I was to edit it. The contract, which as far as I know
was standard boilerplate, had a clause requiring the authors to
certify that this was their own original work, not something
plagiarized or otherwise largely borrowed from others. They would not
sign that stipulation, so the deal fell through.
This indicates to me that there were proper standards and
appropriate diligence regarding copyrights.
Taylor Kingston
> On Feb 7, 11:45 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
> > > question as to what proof CC requires from writers concerning
> > > copyright proof. On this he has remained silent. Why? Could it be
> > > that there are no standards?
>
> > > Mr. Kingston and still it goes unanswered. Perhaps I should write to
> > > Hannon Russell and ask him?
> > one. If you do write to him, I would suggest that you spell his name
> > correctly.
>
There is only one correct way to spell his first name: Hanon.
> > I do recall one situation I was marginally involved in where
> > copyright standards came up. Russell Enterprises was considering
> > publishing a book by a couple of Scandinavian writers, on Nimzovitch
> > as I recall. I was to edit it.
> >The contract, which as far as I know
> > was standard boilerplate, had a clause requiring the authors to
> > certify that this was their own original work, not something
> > plagiarized or otherwise largely borrowed from others. They would not
> > sign that stipulation, so the deal fell through.
> > This indicates to me that there were proper standards and
> > appropriate diligence regarding copyrights.
>
> So you believe that Mr. Winter probably signed such paperwork claiming
> copyright ownership?
I have no idea. I merely said that I knew such a stipulation was
involved in one contract. This was in rebuttal to your insinuation
that ChessCafe has "no standards" regarding copyrights. I can testify
that it had them in that case, indicating it has in others.
> This would make Mr. Parr's suggestion even more damning of Mr. Winter.
> It would mean that Chess Cafe' would be holding proof that a "famous"
> chess writer lied.
Parr has presented absolutely no evidence to invalidate Winter's
copyright claims. He has no idea what Winter may have done to obtain
legal copyright. He has merely assumed and speculated the worst
because he dislikes Winter. And you, Rob, have merely illustrated your
customary fatuous credulity.
As far as "proof that a 'famous' chess writer lied" goes, Parr has
been proven a liar over and over, on this forum and elsewhere. He is
commonly referred to, here and in the chess community, as Liarry Parr.
Generally I would be inclined to believe the average used-car salesman
or politician before I would believe Parr on most points.
As I said earlier, Rob, I am not able to answer your questions
authoritatively. I simply don't know. Writing now and then for
ChessCafe does not mean I have any involvement in its legal affairs --
I don't now, and never have. If you want to get meaningful answers,
rather than just idly engage here in malicious speculation and
unfounded character assassination, you will have to contact the
principals.
Rob
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have written directly to Chess Cafe' inquiring as to what their
policies officially are in this matter. Hopefully they can provide a
simple affirmation of a set of standards. Lacking that, it leaves open
the possibility of accusations.
For Taylor's benefit I am not saying Chess Cafe' has done anything
wrong nor am I saying any of it's writers have done anything wrong. As
a prudent publisher I would suspect that Chess Cafe' would require
proof of copyright before it acted to affirm any legal rights on
behalf of a writer. Is that unreasonable to conclude that Taylor? Or
is everything correct except a word I misspelled?
Which according to your standards would tend to discredit the whole
argument. :-)
Rob
Larry Tapper
> I have written directly to Chess Cafe' inquiring as to what their
> policies officially are in this matter. Hopefully they can provide a
> simple affirmation of a set of standards. Lacking that, it leaves open
> the possibility of accusations.
>
If I were Hanon Russell, I'd see no compelling reason to reply to
Rob's request for information. I would of course reply to a similar
request for information coming from someone's lawyer, a concerned
author, or anyone else who had a legitimate interest in the matter.
But Rob's standing to ask about Hanon's copyright policy is roughly
akin to a gossip columnist's standing to ask a celebrity about his
policy regarding the sanctity of marriage. There's nothing to be
gained by dignifying the question with a response.
"It leaves open the possibility of accusations"? LOL. Since when have
mere facts gotten in the way of rgcp posters who have a taste for
scandal-mongering?
Larry T.
Rob
keep up with people who are supposed to be your "friends" and those
who are supposed to be your "enemies"
Here I get attacked by someone who is supposed to be a friend? Must be
something in the water.. LOL Or maybe it's just that chess players
get bored with agreeing all the time and just feel compelled to "duke
it out" for no good reason!
:-)
On Feb 8, 10:37 am, "Larry Tapper" <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:05 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I have written directly to Chess Cafe' inquiring as to what their
> > policies officially are in this matter. Hopefully they can provide a
> > simple affirmation of a set of standards. Lacking that, it leaves open
> > the possibility of accusations.
>
> If I were Hanon Russell,
You would have to change your name!
>I'd see
But would you "hear"?
>no compelling reason to reply to
> Rob's request for information.
> I would of course reply to a similar
> request for information coming from someone's lawyer, a concerned
> author, or anyone else who had a legitimate interest in the matter.
Then why give your comments away for free here? Questions are asked of
those that have information others value.
> But Rob's standing to ask about Hanon's copyright policy is roughly
> akin to a gossip columnist's standing to ask a celebrity about his
> policy regarding the sanctity of marriage.
Leave the humor and satire to professionals.. you suck at it. just as
I do :-)
>
>There's nothing to be
> gained by dignifying the question with a response.
Oh Pooh! you are just jealous.
> "It leaves open the possibility of accusations"? LOL. Since when have
> mere facts gotten in the way of rgcp posters who have a taste for
> scandal-mongering?
This it true. Guess there is no way to stop those mongrels!
> Larry T.
I am glad you are not he then. We exchanged pollite emails today I am
satisifed with what Hanon wrote
Rob
Chess One
"Larry Tapper" <larry_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170952635.0...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 11:05 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> I have written directly to Chess Cafe' inquiring as to what their
>> policies officially are in this matter. Hopefully they can provide a
>> simple affirmation of a set of standards. Lacking that, it leaves open
>> the possibility of accusations.
>>
>
> If I were Hanon Russell, I'd see no compelling reason to reply to
> Rob's request for information. I would of course reply to a similar
> request for information coming from someone's lawyer, a concerned
> author, or anyone else who had a legitimate interest in the matter.
>
> But Rob's standing to ask about Hanon's copyright policy is roughly
> akin to a gossip columnist's standing to ask a celebrity about his
> policy regarding the sanctity of marriage. There's nothing to be
> gained by dignifying the question with a response.
What cheerless analogies, when no comparison is necessary.
If Chesscafe don't want to answer if they take materials from the public
domain into private copyright, then that itself is an answer.
> "It leaves open the possibility of accusations"? LOL. Since when have
> mere facts gotten in the way of rgcp posters who have a taste for
> scandal-mongering?
So what are the facts re Winter?
Hanon Russel /will not/ address those facts. I take this to be a policy
decision on his part to be unresponsive, and his legal-letters are, in Larry
T's terms, 'scandal mongering' without factual address.
Yesterday I discussed similar issues with Fred Friedel at Chessbase.
"Net-rip" is more than this bluster by Larry T which - his emphasis -
depends on who asks!
Since Rob Mitchell has already received a reply from Russel, I will now
ask - but more specifically. I'll let you know what happens.
Phil Innes
> Larry T.
>
Rob
> "Larry Tapper" <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My inquiry was of a general nature and not specefic to Winter. I
assumed he would be more forthcoming if I posed the question in
general terms which might then be interpolated into more refined ones.
I am glad that Phil has been more direct. Necessarily I believe Mr.
Russell will be more contained in his answer. I anm eager to know what
he says.
Rob
parrt...@cs.com
<Since when have mere facts gotten in the way of rgcp posters
who have a taste for scandal-mongering?> -- Larry Tapper
Edward Winter could claim a copyright on the
U.S. Declaration of Independence at ChessCafe, and I
think it not too unfair to conclude that the
Rapper-Tapperman would find no compelling reason for
Hanon Russell to outline his copyright policies.
Once again, Edward Winter has been parading a
bunch of photographs that he claims are part of his,
ah, archive. He has been claiming a copyright and
warning others to remove these photos from their website.
Some of those photos were and may still be in
the Chess Life morgue; other photos were from the
pages of Chess Review. The USCF owns those
photographs, having purchased Chess Review back in 1969.
I have already provided three specific instances of copyright
claims by Winter that appear to be false and, indeed,
deeply dishonest.
Anyone can get in on this game. The "Winter
archive" is filled with photos that are not his, and
one need merely compare the pages of old Chess Reviews
and the ACB with the archive to see that. As I write
this note, I seem to recollect a fourth photo -- a
player group shot that he lifted out of the tournament
book for Bad Pistyan 1922. Will someone check that
out, too?
Once we can nail a still larger number of false
claims by Winter, we can sit back and enjoy the
defenses of the man offered by Rapper-Tapper, NMnot
Kingston and some of the other apologists.
KENNEDY BOTS; MR 2300+ ELO CRINGES
"Interesting, if not really relevant to
historical issues. Still, on the subject of playing
strength, I have never claimed to be any great player,
but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top
ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a
tad better than 'weak.'" -- Class A-player NMnot
Taylor Kingston lying about his playing strength.
Our discussion of NMnot Taylor Kingston's claim
to be 2300+ Elo continues. Thanks go to Indiana's
Greg Kennedy for bringing up the subject again.
NMnot Kingston, whose actual rating is about
1800, was challenged to a match by 1900-rated Sam
Sloan. There was the usual mincing and prancing by
our NMnot, who declined to play. His olfactory senses
would be disturbed, and the man who praised HIMSELF,
for Pete's sake, while posting under other bogus names,
pronounced himself too morally stratospheric to face
Mr. Sloan over the board. One reader called this
humbug "the Horsefeathers Defense."
And so it was.
But NMnot evidently began to feel that merely
striking a pose of proud man's contumely was
inadequate, since Mr. Sloan continued to hammer at the
former's playing strength. Then one day came a lapse
of moral judgment or, given NMnot's posing under false
names, a reversion to type. In pique, he lied about
his playing strength. He declared straightforwardly
that we was 2300+ Elo without any elaboration.
Mr. Sloan pounced. He posted NMnot's actual
rating of a bit more than 1800 OTB. Whereupon, NMnot
backtracked immediately AFTER Sam and others blew the
whistle. Heh, heh, heh.
NMnot did not offer the lame excuses for his lie
that a Greg Kennedy has taken to offering. Here, the
two men disagree. NMnot said that he posted the lie
because he knew that Sam would not realize that postal
and OTB players had a different rating level. Sam
would thereupon make an ass of himself. As for this
writer, NMnot said that although I would not fall into
the posited clever trap he had laid, I would
nonetheless support Sam in the attacks, thereby
discrediting myself.
NMnot Kingston simply adorned his lie with the
Byzantine embellishments typical of junior high
schoolers who get caught telling whoppers and who then
try to justify them.
Greg Kennedy was unaware of NMnot's earlier
justification for the lie about his rating, so he
offered something different.
We like Greg's argument because we are
absolutely certain that NMnot cringes when reading it.
He must be thinking to himself: "I know that the
bohunkus is trying to help me. Yes, I know that. But
can't he come up with something different than saying
that people reading about being 2300+ Elo would
think I was talking about postal play!? Can't the guy
understand that I rejected this farfetched idea when
offering my own defense, and why won't he check out
what I wrote earlier and simply repeat a version of
it? Frankly, I wish he would never bring up the
subject again. Let that idiot Parr be forced to do that."
Rob
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Has Mr. Russell replied to your inquiry? Silence is an answer in and
of itself, is it not?
Rob
Chess One
"Rob" <robm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1171051030.2...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Since Rob Mitchell has already received a reply from Russel, I will now
>> ask - but more specifically. I'll let you know what happens.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>
>>
>> > Larry T.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Has Mr. Russell replied to your inquiry? Silence is an answer in and
> of itself, is it not?
Yes, silence is the stern reply. Phil
> Rob
>
help bot
> <Since when have mere facts gotten in the way of rgcp posters
> who have a taste for scandal-mongering?> -- Larry Tapper
As far as I can see, they never have -- except in those rare
instances
where an Evans ratpacker has tripped over them, purely by accident.
> Edward Winter could claim a copyright on the
> U.S. Declaration of Independence
He could, but *enforcement* might prove very difficult in this case.
OTOH, Sam Sloan has argued successfully before the Supreme
Court before, and perhaps he could do it once again.
> He must be thinking to himself: "I know that the
> bohunkus is trying to help me.
I'm sure I have seen this term used before, but I can't recall
where.
At dictionary.com and other Web sites, that spelling yields an error
message, suggesting "bohunk" instead. Apparently a combination
word, deriving in part from "bohemian" and in part from "hunk", thus
rendering: one helluva sexy man, either from Bohemia or else
inclined to an unconventional nature. As I recall, this is *partly*
true, for the man never played anything that did not begin with
1.c4 -- hardly the convention of the time. But as for being a hunk,
I seriously doubt it; in those days the sexiest male chess players of
Indy were, IMHO, probably Steve Taylor and one fellow whose name,
for the life of me, I cannot recall, who reminded me a little of the
famous actor who portrayed Apollo Creed in the blockbuster movie,
Rocky; he only played blitz chess, and never competed, however,
and the other moved away. Now, I suppose, the standards for
bohunkdom have dropped substantially in Indy.
> Frankly, I wish he would never bring up the
> subject again. Let that idiot Parr be forced to do that."
I somehow doubt that the idiot, Larry Parr, requires any "forcing"
here. To the contrary, he seems inclined to repeat his lies at every
opportunity.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Nonsense; once quoted text has been shewn, it cannot thereafter be
hidden from view. This is just the sort of self-contradictory stuff
which
is the hallmark of the Evans ratpackers. ;>D
-- help bot
help bot
> 1.c4 -- hardly the convention of the time. But as for being a hunk,
> I seriously doubt it; in those days the sexiest male chess players of
> Indy were, IMHO, probably Steve Taylor and one fellow whose name,
> for the life of me, I cannot recall, who reminded me a little of the
> famous actor who portrayed Apollo Creed in the blockbuster movie,
> Rocky;
Walt Thompson; now I recall. Tall, dark, muscular, and handsome,
though hardly bohemian, for he played all the most popular openings,
just as did most everyone else at the time.
But perhaps Mr. Parr merely was Latinizing the term bohunk, and
for some unknown reason, my searches found nothing of a match?
At any rate, it is obvious to me that he will undoubtedly follow up
by pointing out the superior looks and rugged handsomeness of
his favorite, Sam Sloan, to any and all comers, regardless of their
preference in the chess openings or any other unconventional
tendencies.
In another thread at this time, I am engaged in discussion of the
strength of Mr. Innes -- reputedly a nearly-an-IM, sporting a rating
of
2450 no less -- who insists both that he is going to withdraw from
participation, and that I am a coward for not having joined in!
Indeed,
such friends as these are most appropriate for the GM Evans "team",
for
birds of a feather often flock together. The self-contradictory
nature of
such pronouncements is quite lost to them, and if nothing else, they
should at least provide good humor for the sharper lurkers.
I am anxiously awaiting further developments in the Winter
Collection
"scandal", and I'm sure we shall be kept up-to-date by either Mr. Parr
himself, or, should things take a turn against him, at least by our
old
friend Louis Blair.
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
<Yes, silence is the stern reply.> -- Phil Innes
Yes, indeed. The silence from ChessCafe about Edward Winter's
copyright claim about photos he scanned is indeed deafening.
And a tip of the hat to Greg Kennedy (Help Bot) for providing comic
relief. He always has something to say even though he has nothing to
say.
politi...@gmail.com
> SILENCE IS DEAFENING
>
> <Yes, silence is the stern reply.> -- Phil Innes
>
> Yes, indeed. The silence from ChessCafe about Edward Winter's
> copyright claim about photos he scanned is indeed deafening.
>
> And a tip of the hat to Greg Kennedy (Help Bot) for providing comic
> relief. He always has something to say even though he has nothing to
> say.
>
>
>
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
> >news:1171051030.2...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> Since Rob Mitchell has already received a reply from Russel, I will now
> > >> ask - but more specifically. I'll let you know what happens.
>
> > >> Phil Innes
>
> > >> > Larry T.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Has Mr. Russell replied to your inquiry? Silence is an answer in and
> > > of itself, is it not?
>
> > Yes, silence is the stern reply. Phil
>
> > > Rob
Eleven questions for Larry baby to answer. (Parr has already told us
that while he doesn't know what happened in Hungary, it's OK with Parr
that Sloan claims to have had sex with the minor S. Polgar. Whether
or not Sloan is telling the truth, Polgar was above the legal age of
consent. Therefore, whether Sloan is lying or boasting about prior
sexual relations with a minor, Larry Parr endorses Sloan's conduct and
finds him a fit fiduciary.)
But the silence on the other questions? An answer in and of
itself....
Chop, chop.
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1171215871.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> SILENCE IS DEAFENING
>
> <Yes, silence is the stern reply.> -- Phil Innes
>
> Yes, indeed. The silence from ChessCafe about Edward Winter's
> copyright claim about photos he scanned is indeed deafening.
Lest we forget!
> And a tip of the hat to Greg Kennedy (Help Bot) for providing comic
> relief. He always has something to say even though he has nothing to
> say.
Not only - Corn Bot has now begun to speak his sweet nothings for 'no
one', as in 'no one believes'. A truism, if tautalogically so. If he can't
quite address copyrights he is content to mention copywrongs; as in who
should not speak about copyright, since, as ani ful no, that is a most
important legal point, and if he can't join in our chess tournament [fear of
heights? besides, he is missing my English Defence against 2100 Grant Perks
whose trap I have just voluntarily entered <yikes!>] he nevertheless
contributes enough gloom and suspicion so save that other great player, NM
Kings not, the twubble of creating yet another Beach Boy analogy, for which
I am profoundly grateful.
Should I not hear anything more from Chesscafe, I hope Louis will quote me
on this absense. And where is Louis? I refuse to believe he has morphed into
Jason - Jason's points are immediate and presented up-front, being, as many
think, what a point is for.
Cornstalks! Phil
Chess One
our children; the relatively antiseptic subject of copyright and proxy-bs on
same, by the beach boy intellect of burlington, is here turned to the
subject of human sexuality - not a simple subject, even for experts - in
fact a primary complexity of factors. But what's for sure, having sat on a
regional board to discern the fate of 'troubled' children and who troubles
them, is that obsessionalism about abuse is not any synonym for care!
Often, remonstration seeks to remove the cause of one's own compulsion by
externalising that devil onto others, so that thing may continue to exist in
the dark - in proud isolation, and without real discourse with other adults.
You can assess for yourself what real and impersonal standards exist in all
this person's writing.
That form of indolent silence about one's own orientation is not deafening,
it is all too common and increasingly too sad in our society.
They are your children, if you have them, and as as you know, you don't ever
really possess them, and they must ultimately make their own way in life.
Beware what goes not-examined by 'enthusiasts', which is their own selves.
You must ask yourself /why/ people wish control over your kids. Do not
accept any holy-roman explanations, since that has proved the worst of all
scenarios.
If sincere adult opinion had wished for any standards to exist in
organisations which had to do with children, they would have mentioned it,
if there was any ear to listen. Is there?
Shit! This is like some 1950's drama based on surface cultural reactionism -
as if we could or would not understand very much more about our own
responses and culpabilities in the interim. But we do not - and so those
vulnerable continue to suffer, and more this than last year.
Phil Innes
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171216473.1...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
politi...@gmail.com
Once again, point conceded.
However, I believe that question 12 (cited below) did not directly
address Sloan's self-reported sexual relations with minors, but rather
his current service as a member of the board of the USCF. Further,
question 11 had nothing to do with that subject.
<< 11. Do you agree that, on the basis of Goichberg's actions as
cited
upthread, Sloan is correct to call for Goichberg's removal as
president?
12. Do you agree with Sloan that Goichberg's September 2006 public
motion (as referred to by Sloan below) "effectively force[d Sloan] to
reveal" his [alleged] prior relationship with S. Polgar? >>
The original context for these two questions may be found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/49d964854370622d?hl=en&
parrt...@cs.com
NMnot Taylor Kingston has lost interest in
whether his ally Edward Winter has engaged in repeated
serial lying when claiming copyright for photographs
that are either in the USCF photo morgue or owned
outright by the USCF after its purchase of Chess Review.
We knew NMnot's attention span would wander.
As for word from ChessCafe, the silence is deafening
about its role in attempting to purloin USCF property.
Greg Kennedy, the self-described deprived
Indiana factory laborer, appears no longer interested
in discussing 1800-rated NMnot Kingston's bald,
straightforward claim to be 2300+ Elo. The Bot
offered justifications for the lie that differed from
those initially employed by NMnot himself. We figure
that the lad wants out. Though, as always, we will
oblige him when he next raises the subject.
Finally, I read a claim that the USCF is now
spiking mention in Nolanland of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's
role in the Yudina murder and the dentention of
dissidents in Soviet-era mental asylums, where they
are tortured. If true, a new low has been achieved by
Mike the Spike.
Kenneth Sloan
> A NEW LOW
>
> NMnot Taylor Kingston has lost interest in
> whether his ally Edward Winter has engaged in repeated
> serial
BZZZZT!
--
Kenneth Sloan Kennet...@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
help bot
> Not only - Corn Bot has now begun to speak his sweet nothings for 'no
> one', as in 'no one believes'. A truism, if tautalogically so. If he can't
> quite address copyrights
It may be that Corn Bot has no particular claims to special knowledge
in the realms of copyrights, and only knows that one LP has, again,
*lashed out* at one of his many perceived enemies, out of angst and
anguish.
However, I do recall him writing something on the subject, which,
however, was not answered, no doubt due to the possibility that it
might put in an embarrassing light the guilt-by-accusation methods
adopted by this Mr. Parr. As I recall, it had to do with the distinct
possibility (I make no assertion here) of the Winter Collection being
a copyrighted *collection* of photos, whose individual ownership
might well be irrelevant and immaterial.
It should be enough that no apologies for EW are forthcoming; only
a desire to see the result of the accusational method. Shall it end
with
EW being hung out to dry; or with yet another "LB collection"
anecdote?
Time will tell. All things come to those who mate.
> he is content to mention copywrongs; as in who
> should not speak about copyright,
Capital idea! I think IM Innes, being a particularly nutty poster,
ought not to write of technical things like copyrights; leave this to
the somewhat more competent idiots, like LP. Just my opinion,
mind you.
> since, as ani ful no, that is a most
> important legal point,
[Enter Sam Sloan, stage right.]
> and if he can't join in our chess tournament [fear of
> heights? besides, he is missing my English Defence against 2100 Grant Perks
> whose trap I have just voluntarily entered
The trouble with this defense is that is isn't really playable. I
am
left wondering why a famous nearly-an-IM would "voluntarily" enter
a "trap", unless of course the trap is determined to backfire. You
should see the games I am having at RedHotPawn! All these
players seem to be in a conspiracy to make me look as a genius!
It feels as if on every move I am forced to choose between chopping
a Rook, or else making a zweichenzug, and *then* chopping the
Rook!
> <yikes!>] he nevertheless
> contributes enough gloom and suspicion so save that other great player, NM
> Kings not, the twubble of creating yet another Beach Boy analogy, for which
> I am profoundly grateful.
Anyone who can dislike the Beach Boys, well, need I even
comment? This negativity is akin to approaching "Dead Man's
Curve" at 90 mph. Or to going up against a "409" with a mere
diesel engine VW Rabbit. It is like going to the beach, and not
bringing along any "Hunnies" or surfboards. You get the point.
> Should I not hear anything more from Chesscafe, I hope Louis will quote me
> on this absense. And where is Louis? I refuse to believe he has morphed into
> Jason - Jason's points are immediate and presented up-front, being, as many
> think, what a point is for.
How touching that one of the Evans ratpack "misses" the old boy.
Even if it is the lowest of them all; the one who will readily accept
the rantings of Mr. Repa, and indeed, *prefer* them to more reasoned
rantings by the chess world's foremost quote-bot. Well, as they say,
there's no accounting for taste.
-- help bot
politi...@gmail.com
Zugzwang?
politi...@gmail.com
parrt...@cs.com
Greg Kennedy appears determined to drop the
subject of 1800-rated NMnot Taylor Kingston's claim to
be 2300+ Elo. We keep offering him the opportunity to
renew the subject that he most recently introduced here,
and he declines -- much to the relief of NMnot himself.
That leaves the subject of Edward Winter's bogus
claim to own copyright of photographs in his so-called
"archive." Mr. Winter claims to have copyright of
photos either in the Chess Life photo morgue or owned
by the magazine after it purchased Chess Review in 1969.
I have mentioned several examples of such purloined
photos, and there has been a deafening silence
from NMnot Kingston and, to be sure, ChessCafe itself.
The issue becomes whether Mr. Winter has
engaged in serial, repeated lying, claiming property
either in the public domain or owned by another.
Our lad from Indiana (Help Bog) still has a bit of fight
left in him on this issue, though it is fighting about
my person rather than the telling silence of NMnot
Kingston, ChessCafe and, of course, Mr. Winter himself.
politi...@gmail.com
suggest the "Warsaw Pact soldiers on leave" defense?
help bot
> That leaves the subject of Edward Winter's bogus
> claim to own copyright of photographs in his so-called
> "archive." Mr. Winter claims to have copyright of
> photos either in the Chess Life photo morgue or owned
> by the magazine after it purchased Chess Review in 1969.
>
> I have mentioned several examples of such purloined
> photos, and there has been a deafening silence
I wouldn't say that, exactly.
I am left wondering whether it is possible that EW has made a
horrible
blunder, in thinking that his "Winter Collection" rights extend to
each
*individual* photo contained therein. After all, everyone can blunder
now
and again. And who knows how old EW may be, or if he may in fact be
so old as to suffer from a lessening of mental acuity, not unlike GM
Evans? In any event, time will tell.
BTW, the term "purloined" would seem to require that some sort of
*substantive* evidence be produced by the accuser; this is customary,
and in fact, established by legal precedent. (If LP cannot understand
such terms as "precedent" or "evidence", he may wish to consult
with legal counsel, Sam Sloan -- who has, not unsuccessfully I might
add, argued before the Supreme Court). As these pesky courts and
customs would have it in my country, the heavy burden of proof lies
on the shoulders of the accuser, unfair as this may seem.
All I can add to that is that the mere appearance of some photo --
either in the Winter Collection, or in Chess Life and Review -- is
wholly insufficient to prove its ownership, or copyright. That, BTW,
is just my personal opinion, and I am not a lawyer. But having
something in the way of common sense, I have noted that LP's
angst-motivated accusations leave much to be desired in the way
of anything besides emotion to back them up. Certainly, we can
all agree that Mr. Parr is most definitely *not* on good terms with
Mr.
Winter, and thus, the need for objectivity becomes all the more
pronounced. Personally, I am for EW forwarding all his photos
and whatnot to me, to be renamed "the Bot Collection", thus
relieving Mr. Parr of much of his envious feelings and hatred toward
EW for being able to spell correctly and transcribe dates without
frequent error.
-- help bot
help bot
<politikalh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since Larry Parr seems to be uncharacteristically stumped, may I
> suggest the "Warsaw Pact soldiers on leave" defense?
Perhaps Mr. Parr is simply a man of few words. Very, very few. ;>D
-- bot
Chess One
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171356368.9...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 2:10 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>> That leaves the subject of Edward Winter's bogus
>> claim to own copyright of photographs in his so-called
>> "archive." Mr. Winter claims to have copyright of
>> photos either in the Chess Life photo morgue or owned
>> by the magazine after it purchased Chess Review in 1969.
>>
>> I have mentioned several examples of such purloined
>> photos, and there has been a deafening silence
The Corn-Files, Continued...
> I wouldn't say that, exactly.
As a matter of fact, Corn-Bog is correct and he does not say anything
exactly. Not about specific photos - which /has/ been an issue at chesscafe,
and not about simply bagging all of them either.
What Corn-Bog hasn't said exactly is exactly mirrored by Chesscafe itself
about what they haven't exactly said.
Below he suggests an analogy that if I show up in his Cornfields and stake
my claim to parts of the rarely visited back-40, then its up to others to
prove I stole it from the Lokota People, rather than their pioneer forebears
who did when the wagon broke and wuddna go no further West.
This, he assures the newsgroup, is his 'common sense' unnerstanin o US Law,
n how it auhta be, and also the basis of the International Copyright
Agreement.
MIRROR, MIRROR...
He finishes with another mirrored 'reflets', that it is Parr who pursues a
possibly senile Winter who is nevertheless still able to make active
attempts to restrict others use of his own archive land-grab. Proof requires
that Lakota-Parr establish that he was on the land first, and presumably
Lakota-Parr is lacking 2,000 years of documentation which shows he owns the
land, with proof of postage &c, and since the very idea of owning land is a
fall-down joke to Lokota People who rather thought that the land itself was
in the public domain.
This addition to the Bot Collection will probably go in chapter 4,
"Enantiomorphic Polities -- All I know I learned from one them gophers,
never did catch the lil critter's name, norn the critter neither."
Cordially, Little Big One.
Louis Blair
7 ... NMnot Kingston, whose actual rating is about
7 1800, was challenged to a match by 1900-rated Sam
7 Sloan. There was the usual mincing and prancing by
7 our NMnot, who declined to play. His olfactory senses
7 would be disturbed, and the man who praised HIMSELF,
7 for Pete's sake, while posting under other bogus names,
7 pronounced himself too morally stratospheric to face
7 Mr. Sloan over the board. One reader called this
7 humbug "the Horsefeathers Defense."
7
7 And so it was.
7
7 But NMnot evidently began to feel that merely
7 striking a pose of proud man's contumely was
7 inadequate, since Mr. Sloan continued to hammer at the
7 former's playing strength. Then one day came a lapse
7 of moral judgment or, given NMnot's posing under false
7 names, a reversion to type. In pique, he lied about
7 his playing strength. He declared straightforwardly
7 that we was 2300+ Elo without any elaboration.
7
7 Mr. Sloan pounced. He posted NMnot's actual
7 rating of a bit more than 1800 OTB. Whereupon, NMnot
7 backtracked immediately AFTER Sam and others blew the
7 whistle. Heh, heh, heh. ...
_
Some quotes:
_
"... [The contention of Larry Evans], I seem to recall, is
that the best evidence of a fix was contained in the
games themselves. Mr. Kingston, a weak player,
simply was incapable of doing this kind of analysis."
- Larry Parr (5 Jun 2005 09:14:09 -0700)
_
"... Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he
cannot understand these simple and obvious points
[about games between Keres and Botvinnik]." - Sam
Sloan (sl...@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host:
68.237.248.232) (Sun, 05 Jun 2005 17:31:36 GMT)
_
"... on the subject of playing strength, I have never
claimed to be any great player, but I think with a
peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as I recall,
#46 in the country, I was a tad better than 'weak.'"
- Taylor Kingston (5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700)
_
"... Your USCF Regular Rating is 1811. Your quick
rating is 1695. The highest your rating has ever
been is 1853 ..." - Sam Sloan (sl...@ishipress.com,
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.202.94.20) (Mon,
06 Jun 2005 03:07:44 GMT)
_
"About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that
he's talking about pre-1985 correspondence ratings,
not OTB. ..." - Paul Rubin (05 Jun 2005 20:30:48 -0700)
_
"... I am williong to bet one thousand dollars cash
money on the table that I can beat [Taylor Kingston]
in a chess match. ..." - Sam Sloan
(sl...@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host:
68.237.247.140) (Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:55:32 GMT)
_
"... The only way to test my correspondence title is
to play a correspondence match. However,
circumstances have changed greatly since my peak
postal days of the early 1980s -- computer assistance
is far too easy to come by, and we have no way to
enforce USCF rules. So I see little point in such a
match. ..." - Taylor Kingston (16 Jun 2005
13:07:48 -0700)
_
"... If Mr. Brock wins, nobody here will argue that it
impinges on the issues surrounding a dream match
between NM Taylor Kingston, the 2300+ Elo head
of steam, and 1931-rated Mr. Sloan. On the other
hand, if Mr. Sloan wins a thousand bucks, not only
will Mr. Brock be severely bruised butthe result
would suggest why Natrol Master Kingston is
ducking Mr. Sloan. ..." - Larry Parr (19 Jun 2005
20:04:19 -0700)
_
"... 'Ducking' Mr. Sloan? Here in Vermont we have
many dairy farms. Manure, a natural by-product
of the dairy biz, collects in large quantities.
Neither I, nor anyone else I know, goes out of his
way to spend hours sitting beside one of these
manure piles. Yet none of us have never been
accused of 'ducking' the pile.
BTW, just for the record, Parr's term 'Natrol
Master' in reference to me is yet another of his
many misrepresentations. I have nothing to do
with Natrol; in fact I had never heard of it until a
few days ago." - Taylor Kingston (20 Jun 2005
06:02:09 -0700)
_
"Taylor Kingston gives us his proud man
contumely defense in its purest form below.
He would, to be sure, enjoy stepping into Mr.
Sloan's, ah, pile except that the whole thing
renders his spirit. Mr. Brock may sit across
from a pile of manure, and so would Randy
Bauer, but not Mr. Kingston.
_
How phony. ..." - Larry Parr (20 Jun 2005
10:10:20 -0700)
_
As for the "one reader" who referred to "the
Horsefeathers Defense":
_
"THE 'HORSEFEATHERS' DEFENSE"
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 19:57:27 -0700)
_
It DOES have to be acknowledged that someone,
calling himself "fed up", had previously used the
word, "horsefeathers", in connection with the
matter. I imagine that many here remember the
type:
_
"Parrthenon keeps making solid, well-reasoned
arguments, ..." - fed up (30 Apr 2005 19:50:13 -0700)
_
By the way, why isn't jr posting anymore? Perhaps
he is fed up.
Rob
> 68.237.248.232) (Sun, 05 Jun 2005 17:31:36 GMT)
> _
> "... on the subject of playing strength, I have never
> claimed to be any great player, but I think with a
> peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as I recall,
> #46 in the country, I was a tad better than 'weak.'"
> - Taylor Kingston (5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700)
> _
> "... Your USCF Regular Rating is 1811. Your quick
> rating is 1695. The highest your rating has ever
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.202.94.20) (Mon,
> 06 Jun 2005 03:07:44 GMT)
> _
> "About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that
> he's talking about pre-1985 correspondence ratings,
> not OTB. ..." - Paul Rubin (05 Jun 2005 20:30:48 -0700)
> _
> "... I am williong to bet one thousand dollars cash
> money on the table that I can beat [Taylor Kingston]
> in a chess match. ..." - Sam Sloan
Playing stregnth is easily enough determined by actual play. The
current email chess tournament attests to that. I have seen no
evidence,nor would I presume there to be, any use of programs.. Rather
than playing Sanny's program over and over you might expect chess
players to actually want to play a person. The proof is in the
pudding.
help bot
> > I wouldn't say that, exactly.
>
> As a matter of fact, Corn-Bog is correct and he does not say anything
> exactly. Not about specific photos - which /has/ been an issue at chesscafe,
> and not about simply bagging all of them either.
The bagging of corn is in itself a potential violation: does not Pop
Weaver
or maybe Corn Pops maker, Kellogg, own the cereal rights? This is
undoubtedly what LP meant when he wrote of repeated, serial lies. In
view of his incoherence and apparent inability to construct a
meaningful
sentence, I of course gave no regard to his ability to discern the
difference
in spelling between serial and cereal in that post, apparently written
in a
state of utter confusion.
> What Corn-Bog hasn't said exactly is exactly mirrored by Chesscafe itself
> about what they haven't exactly said.
Thus confirming my take on the matter, thanks.
> Below he suggests an analogy that if I show up in his Cornfields and stake
> my claim to parts of the rarely visited back-40, then its up to others to
> prove I stole it from the Lokota People,
Ridiculous; The Lakota are known to have resided in the
states of North and South Dakota, not anywhere nearer to
me than is Vermont! Why do these ignorant Evans ratpackers
have so much difficulty when it comes to coherent ad hominem
attacks? Amateurs.
> rather than their pioneer forebears
> who did when the wagon broke and wuddna go no further West.
Thank god -- at least one of them can comprehend that I
am *West* of their location, and not, say, at the South Pole
or in mid-Atlantic seas.
> This, he assures the newsgroup, is his 'common sense' unnerstanin o US Law,
> n how it auhta be, and also the basis of the International Copyright
> Agreement.
Interesting. I hadn't considered the international aspect as
yet, being caught up in the many fold ad hominem aspects.
Indeed, this could be a case of violation of international
treaty -- not unlike Sam Sloan kidnapping a young Thai girl
and bringing her to his lair in New York.
> MIRROR, MIRROR...
>
> He finishes with another mirrored 'reflets', that it is Parr who pursues a
> possibly senile Winter
Very astute; I wasn't certain any of the ignorant bunch who
worship GM Evans' every rant could even grasp the issue
I raised. Were EW to fall into a daze of confusion, he, if senile,
could easily make such a mistake as claiming to own each
individual photo in his copyrighted *collection*.
> who is nevertheless still able to make active
> attempts to restrict others use of his own archive land-grab.
Again, an apparent confusion of geography; that was in
Oklahoma, where homesteaders who got there first could
lay claim to Indian lands for free.
This is the internet, and getting here first means only an
addition length of suffering of fools, such as yourself. OTOH,
early interneteers gain the advantage of avoiding the nasty
dustbowl phenomenon which plagued the Okies.
> Proof requires
> that Lakota-Parr establish that he was on the land first, and presumably
> Lakota-Parr is lacking 2,000 years of documentation which shows he owns the
> land, with proof of postage &c, and since the very idea of owning land is a
> fall-down joke to Lokota People who rather thought that the land itself was
> in the public domain.
Very astute observation on the American Indian, there.
However, it is hardly LP's obligation to show anything
more than *substantive* evidence of the theft of a single,
specific photo, and we are patiently awaiting his next
ploy, or rather, move in this regard. The addition of
dozens more insinuations and innuendos are of no
significance whatever, as anyone of sound mind can
tell you.
> This addition to the Bot Collection will probably go in chapter 4,
> "Enantiomorphic Polities -- All I know I learned from one them gophers,
> never did catch the lil critter's name, norn the critter neither."
I strongly suspect this to be an *attempt* to reference
the famous book "All I Needed to Know, I Learned in
Kindergarten", by Ray Keene, who knows everything.
I fairly recently read another reference to this work, which
was thoroughly praised -- not unlike Taylor Kingston when
his alter-egos write here. As I recall, it was Tony Sagami
who showered this book with praise, providing short
snippets like "play fair", "don't take things that don't belong
to you", and so forth.
> Cordially, Little Big One.
Silly IM: everyone knows you are not among the few who
survive of the American Indians. You are well known to
have derived of Irish stock, whereas the Indians came
across the Bering land bridge (which was sunk by Col.
Custer in the battle of the Little Big Horn). It is your
ancestors who brought dread diseases like Small Pox
over, effectively wiping out the Indians, who in fact were
*not* killed off by actor John Wayne, as often depicted in
Hollywood movies.
-- help bot
Rob
AH but the iIndians imparted STDs that helped equalize matters.
Taylor Kingston
Yes, the massive impact of STDs explains why Amerindians dominate
the continent of Europe, and why the few remaining white people there
are confined mostly to reservations.
Chess One
>> Below he suggests an analogy that if I show up in his Cornfields and
>> stake
>> my claim to parts of the rarely visited back-40, then its up to others to
>> prove I stole it from the Lokota People,
>
> Ridiculous; The Lakota are known to have resided in the
> states of North and South Dakota, not anywhere nearer to
> me than is Vermont! Why do these ignorant Evans ratpackers
> have so much difficulty when it comes to coherent ad hominem
> attacks? Amateurs.
Corn-bloke can't quote grasp my point, so makes an attack. Figures. But as
to ad hominem, he kids himself, he ain't said nuthin to even get ad hom
about, if'n you even needed to.
>> This, he assures the newsgroup, is his 'common sense' unnerstanin o US
>> Law,
>> n how it auhta be, and also the basis of the International Copyright
>> Agreement.
>
> Interesting. I hadn't considered the international aspect as
> yet,
It has to do with other people, books s'nall being invented by other people
and chucked around for 600 years.
> being caught up in the many fold ad hominem aspects.
Poor Corn-bog! He who has no opinions of his own, seeks sympathy for writing
nothing on behalf of no one about those who do have them.
> Indeed, this could be a case of violation of international
> treaty -- not unlike Sam Sloan kidnapping a young Thai girl
> and bringing her to his lair in New York.
No it couldn't - it is a wet analogy about a serious subject.
>> MIRROR, MIRROR...
>>
>> He finishes with another mirrored 'reflets', that it is Parr who pursues
>> a
>> possibly senile Winter
>
> Very astute; I wasn't certain any of the ignorant bunch who
> worship GM Evans' every rant could even grasp the issue
> I raised.
You might try writing to GM Evans and see what goes. Or you could speculate,
as usual. How will you ever really know what he is really like? From King
Stone? I don't think so ;)
> Were EW to fall into a daze of confusion, he, if senile,
> could easily make such a mistake as claiming to own each
> individual photo in his copyrighted *collection*.
>
>> who is nevertheless still able to make active
>> attempts to restrict others use of his own archive land-grab.
>
> Again, an apparent confusion of geography; that was in
> Oklahoma, where homesteaders who got there first could
> lay claim to Indian lands for free.
I think it was a widespread practice - like the idiot Rushmore, a mining
speculator, after whom a monument was named smack in the middle of sacred
Dakota land, not exactly as a palliative to local sensibility - more as the
real 'up yours' genocide. Before 'Mt. Rushmore' the mountain had no name,
which is the due respect normal to such a place.
But these corrections to your own historical understanding are no doubt an
aside to your understanding of copyright - on which you seem to base them.
> This is the internet, and getting here first means only an
> addition length of suffering of fools, such as yourself. OTOH,
> early interneteers gain the advantage of avoiding the nasty
> dustbowl phenomenon which plagued the Okies.
Fools will write about their lives and loves, no? How sad for you internet
orginators who have neither.
>> Proof requires
>> that Lakota-Parr establish that he was on the land first, and presumably
>> Lakota-Parr is lacking 2,000 years of documentation which shows he owns
>> the
>> land, with proof of postage &c, and since the very idea of owning land is
>> a
>> fall-down joke to Lokota People who rather thought that the land itself
>> was
>> in the public domain.
>
> Very astute observation on the American Indian, there.
It is common knowledge - though not taught in high-schools for political
purposes. It is not seemly to either mention the slave culture of the
founders nor what they did to an inconvenient populace who resented
rapacious greed - if they did so, then claims of ethnic cleansing eg, would
be harder to be upset about at the UN.
It is also common knowledge that other empires did the same, certainly the
British did so on the good old Roman model, in whose shadow we still all
live. If you can use force, that is enough, no?
> However, it is hardly LP's obligation to show anything
> more than *substantive* evidence of the theft of a single,
> specific photo, and we are patiently awaiting his next
> ploy, or rather, move in this regard.
And here you are at last! How is any public domain document to be proved as
such, especially to people who write 10,000 words without the slightest
knowledge of the subject, nor of what would consitute any proof?
If you have been here since the dawn of the internet, surely you recognise
your 'prove it' ploy to be common, in both senses of the word. Besides,
'prove it' has the handy merit of ignoring the law of what copyright is, and
seeming to be reasonable request, while ignorantly shouting off your mouth
about what you know to be false.
>> Cordially, Little Big One.
>
> Silly IM: everyone knows you are not among the few who
> survive of the American Indians. You are well known to
> have derived of Irish stock,
We Scots would not quibble with that, except that you Kennedys are known in
Ireland to not know your Pictish Art from your Warhole.
> whereas the Indians came
> across the Bering land bridge (which was sunk by Col.
> Custer in the battle of the Little Big Horn).
Wrongo! Catch up on your megalithics! Seek the spearheads! You will discover
there was another route from Brittany, much earlier.
> It is your
> ancestors who brought dread diseases like Small Pox
> over, effectively wiping out the Indians, who in fact were
> *not* killed off by actor John Wayne, as often depicted in
> Hollywood movies.
Indians were killed off by extras in movies who behaved like morons for the
camera and a per diem.
You know, you climb the ladder outside the fort while shouting insane war
cries to alert the guards, expose yourself tall on the parapet, and get shot
in the chest falling //always// backwards onto your moron buddies below.
Same tale of idiot opponents in every conqueror culture.
Beware your own fall, or people will take your own indolence and fly it into
your mamon symbol, and you will not understand why - or worth their lives.
Phil
> -- help bot
>
>
>
help bot
[Nothing of note.]
IM Innes bemoans the request for real evidence of the charge
leveled by his boss, Larry Parr. But why? Why does not the
worthy nearly-an-IM accept the *need* for real evidence? Why
is he always content with a *mere accusation* -- provided it is
made by his boss man? The tongue must ultimately tire from
all its licking of boots. But such a tongue! How strong, and
how severely worn!
I jist wants one single photo to be singled out by the boss,
along with his assurance that he will eat his hat if it was not
stolen by EW -- the low dog! Then we can sit back and very
patiently await the verdict, anticipating collecting on our bets.
My bet is now that LP hasn't the guts to risk his reputation --
even such that it is -- against EW's, mono a mono. No, I am
bettin' that LP is a pure and simple *innuendo* kind of guy, a
low, cowardly scum, who would never show up to a fair duel
where the opponent has half a chance. That at least, has
been his history, and why change what (he thinks) works?
I don't want to bet *on* Edward Winter here, oh no. For I
don't know but that he may have erred in overextending his
claims well into Indian territory -- Commanche burying ground,
perhaps! No, I don't wish to endanger my scalp and hair-- such
that it is. But I am willing to risk a bet agin' Mr. Parr, based
on...
let's say his "rating": the single best predictor of future results.
My "bet" takes into account both the utter unreliability of LP
AND his bitter, emotional involvement in this case, which I
expect would tend to upset his judgment such as to make it
*even worse* than normal. In sum, I see LP as a fair counter-
indicator of the truth of any issue in which he is personally
involved, as is the case here.
In addition, I would point out that if the real issue here were
copyrights and theft, we would long ago have moved on from
EW to a host of other offenders; but alas! We find ourselves
stuck in the mud, and we all know perfectly well why.
-- Sitting bot
Rob
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Taylor,
Are you saying that I am wrong? Are you saying that they did not
infect Europeans? I did not mean to imply that Europeans were wiped
out but to indicate that the transmission of disease is a two way
street. Small pox has been for all intents and purposes eliminated but
the diseases born from the New World have not.
http://www.archaeology.org/9701/newsbriefs/syphilis.html
Rob
Taylor Kingston
>
> > > AH but the iIndians imparted STDs that helped equalize matters.
>
> > Yes, the massive impact of STDs explains why Amerindians dominate
> > the continent of Europe, and why the few remaining white people there
> > are confined mostly to reservations.
>
> Are you saying that I am wrong? Are you saying that they did not
> infect Europeans? I did not mean to imply that Europeans were wiped
> out but to indicate that the transmission of disease is a two way
> street.
The phrase "helped equalize matters" struck me as both inaccurate
and in bad taste. The effects of the diseases transmitted between the
two populations were nowhere near equal. As far as I know, a much
higher proportion of the native American population perished from
European-borne diseases than vice versa. Not to mention enslavement
and genocide. If it was "a two-way street," the traffic was largely in
one direction.
Rob
wrote:
Taylor,
I do not intend to be drun into another "high arch urination contest"
with you. However the phrase struch you is of little concern to me .
As for being inaccurate as to the worldwide impact of syphillis
further investigation might be in order on your half. My comment in no
way made light of the 17 million dead in 50 years of European invasion
of the Americas. The barbarity of the enslavement of indeginous
peoples by Europeans in no small part led to the import of African
slaves and an entirely new and ugly chapter in history.
What I would hope you might do before you off handedly dismiss
anything coming from someone you dislike is to first research the
matter. While the utter decimation of nearly an entire race can and
should be in noway excused or pardoned, the socio-economic impact on
Eurpoean history and indeed world history of syphillis cannot be
ignored.
Even Shakespere wrote of it! The means of transmission is what kept it
in the shadows. Compare the total number of deaths from syphillis
since 1492 and the death from small pox through today and then
belittle my comment.
Rob
help bot
> > Interesting. I hadn't considered the international aspect as
> > yet,
>
> It has to do with other people, books s'nall being invented by other people
> and chucked around for 600 years.
Oddly enough, I recently downloaded a few of the classics,
and began to read; much to my surprise, the very first tome
contained only a little of wisdom, and considerable folly. My
take is that Jane Austin, the author, was prone to think of
members of the opposite sex as mere tools by which the
female may secure financial security. What value apart
from this was discussed in the book? Only a little, while the
issue of money dominated her thoughts much as tactics
dominate mine when playing chess. What a grave
disappointment, this was. I hope the next volume will score
better results or at least not be such a disappointment as
that was. Not to say it was a bad book, but I had great
expectations.
> You might try writing to GM Evans and see what goes. Or you could speculate,
> as usual. How will you ever really know what he is really like?
It may surprise you to learn that I already know more
than a little of what he is like, just from having read his
stuff for more than two decades. What's more, judging
from this I have no particular desire to learn more of him,
much preferring the reasonable type, sans arrogance
and it accompanying folly.
> I think it was a widespread practice - like the idiot Rushmore, a mining
> speculator, after whom a monument was named smack in the middle of sacred
> Dakota land, not exactly as a palliative to local sensibility - more as the
> real 'up yours' genocide. Before 'Mt. Rushmore' the mountain had no name,
> which is the due respect normal to such a place.
Moreover, the engraving of human images into rock
was outlawed some two+ millenia beforehand, in one
famous tome: "Thou idioci shalt make unto thyselves --
ugly as thou art -- no graven images or likenesses of
thine ugly bodies, nor of thine hideous faces, nor of
any low, dumb animals -- but I repeateth mine self."
> > Very astute observation on the American Indian, there.
>
> It is common knowledge - though not taught in high-schools for political
> purposes. It is not seemly to either mention the slave culture of the
> founders nor what they did to an inconvenient populace who resented
> rapacious greed - if they did so, then claims of ethnic cleansing eg, would
> be harder to be upset about at the UN.
More recently, the United Nations has been summarily
downgraded, in line with bold plans to rule the world
from on high at a beautiful White House, located, it so
happens, near the seat of a mass of other "graven"
images of men.
> It is also common knowledge that other empires did the same, certainly the
> British did so on the good old Roman model, in whose shadow we still all
> live. If you can use force, that is enough, no?
For some. Yet for me, I see the cutting of knots to
be akin to admission of intellectual inadequacy to
such a task as untying it. This inadequacy leads to
a forced admission that whosoever weildeth a bigger
sword, shall overthrow even the man who boldly cut
the pesky knot and thereby became ruler for a day.
> > However, it is hardly LP's obligation to show anything
> > more than *substantive* evidence of the theft of a single,
> > specific photo, and we are patiently awaiting his next
> > ploy, or rather, move in this regard.
>
> And here you are at last! How is any public domain document to be proved as
> such, especially to people who write 10,000 words without the slightest
> knowledge of the subject, nor of what would consitute any proof?
It would seem that your fear -- yes fear -- makes you
fall back from common decency, which as we know
demands that public accusation be accompanied by
supporting evidence. As Slick Willie Clinton would
say, "I feel your pain!"
> > Silly IM: everyone knows you are not among the few who
> > survive of the American Indians. You are well known to
> > have derived of Irish stock,
>
> We Scots would not quibble with that, except that you Kennedys are known in
> Ireland to not know your Pictish Art from your Warhole.
Please tell the other Kennedys -- of whom you insist
I am one -- to send me my fair share of the family
fortune, for somehow I was overlooked in the wills of
each and every one who died. Perhaps they consider
me a dangerous rival for the presidency, now that dear
Teddy is too ugly to even consider running? And
please do not mention my connection to the
Cherokee, lest they think I am an outsider, or worse,
an inferior breed of human! Tell them I changed my
surname to "bot" out of fear of being assassinated.
> > whereas the Indians came
> > across the Bering land bridge (which was sunk by Col.
> > Custer in the battle of the Little Big Horn).
>
> Wrongo! Catch up on your megalithics! Seek the spearheads! You will discover
> there was another route from Brittany, much earlier.
Insane you are! No land route has ever existed while
man be upon this earth, from Brittan to America, unless
you believe the Viking sailors to have been the original
occupants of America, both by land and by sea, and
that Brittan was connected to Scandanavia via a land
bridge. Obviously then, the original occupants were
derived from Asian stock, via the Alaskan Prudhoe Bay
pipeline route. The very idea that you may have
followed a trail of spearhead evidence across the floor
of the Atlantic Ocean is insane. Everyone knows that
even a polar bear cannot shoot arrows while swimming,
even /with/ the current in his favor! No human can make
the swim; it's just not possible.
> You know, you climb the ladder outside the fort while shouting insane war
> cries to alert the guards, expose yourself tall on the parapet, and get shot
> in the chest falling //always// backwards onto your moron buddies below.
> Same tale of idiot opponents in every conqueror culture.
This sounds like interesting work; more than once I
have noticed an extra taking liberties with some
beautiful woman on set, while the cameras were
rolling. Sometimes the assignment was to merely
catch her in one's arms, other times to lift her to
some platform, but this never stopped them from
going well "beyond the call" of duty. In my day, a
man such as this would be challenged to a duel,
and promptly set in the ground where he belonged.
But now, they get paid for such handiwork as this.
> Beware your own fall, or people will take your own indolence and fly it into
> your mamon symbol, and you will not understand why - or worth their lives.
The same to you I'm sure -- whatever it means.
I have continued my battles at RedHotPawn, and
although relatively few games have finished as
yet, I am murdering -- yes, murdering -- each of
these poor opponents. Please notify your boss,
and tell him to inform inspector Cleusseu of my
serial killings. Oh yes, and your master's boots
could use a good licking-over, as he has been
out "mudding" EW again.
-- help bot
Chess One
>> The phrase "helped equalize matters" struck me as both inaccurate
>> and in bad taste. The effects of the diseases transmitted between the
>> two populations were nowhere near equal. As far as I know, a much
>> higher proportion of the native American population perished from
>> European-borne diseases than vice versa. Not to mention enslavement
>> and genocide. If it was "a two-way street," the traffic was largely in
>> one direction.
>
> Taylor,
> I do not intend to be drun into another "high arch urination contest"
> with you. However the phrase struch you is of little concern to me .
> As for being inaccurate as to the worldwide impact of syphillis
> further investigation might be in order on your half. My comment in no
> way made light of the 17 million dead in 50 years of European invasion
> of the Americas. The barbarity of the enslavement of indeginous
> peoples by Europeans in no small part led to the import of African
> slaves and an entirely new and ugly chapter in history.
Yes - though even before African slaves many 'English' were bondsmen - an
acceptable form of slavery, as in indentured servant, where the subject is
obliged to 'belong' to someone for as much as 15 years. Widespread slavery
was initiated by all the Euro powers, and indeed, many a famous British Bank
and Insurance Institution rested on the two foundations of western slave
trading and eastern opium trading.
I think what slew indiginous populations in the Americas were common
ailments in Europe which Euros had immunity to; mostly this came from
proximity over a long period to domestic animals - not an American practice.
It is interestering that we are no longer immune from chicken-deseases since
for a few generations we have now not lived with them, isolating them to
factories.
Although the tragedy was of epic proportions, in quantitative measure the
desolation of native populations was inadvertent to the conquerors - indeed,
they were dismayed at it, since here were their potential slave-states
decimated! I think there is good analysis of these factors in that
interesting anthropological book, Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond.
> What I would hope you might do before you off handedly dismiss
> anything coming from someone you dislike is to first research the
> matter. While the utter decimation of nearly an entire race can and
> should be in noway excused or pardoned, the socio-economic impact on
> Eurpoean history and indeed world history of syphillis cannot be
> ignored.
Never read history written by the victors! I am afraid West-East spread is a
trope:-
Varieties of STD's have to do with basic hygiene and the one you both
reference is Mesopotamian, from the first cities, "Some of the first
references to sexually transmitted diseases are found in Ancient Babylonia,
mainly gonnorhea and syphillis." See E. W. Hirsch. (1941) Sex Life in
Babylonia. Chicago: Research Publications.
In King Hammurabi's Codes, there is a sexual warning to those who oppose
him, that "...an evil disease, a dangerous sore which cannot be cured, which
the physicians cannot diagnose, which he cannot allay with bandages, and
which like the bit of death cannot be removed; and that he, until he brings
his life to an end, may lament the loss of his vigor...curse him, his seed,
his land, his army, his people and his troops with an evil curse." C. H.
W. Johns. (1903) The Code of Hammurabi. Edingurgh: T. & T. Clark.
> Even Shakespere wrote of it! The means of transmission is what kept it
> in the shadows. Compare the total number of deaths from syphillis
> since 1492 and the death from small pox through today and then
> belittle my comment.
> Rob
Essentially there are two theories of its origin in Europe - the Columbian
[after Columbus] one you cite above, but also, says Wiki:-
There are two thoughts on the origin of syphilis: the Columbian and
pre-Columbian theories. There are ongoing debates in anthropological and
historical fields about the validity of either theory. The pre-Columbian
theory holds that syphilis symptoms are described by Hippocrates in
Classical Greece in its venereal/tertiary form. Some passages in the Bible
could refer to syphilis, especially Exodus 20:5 where the sins of the father
are visited unto the third and fourth generation.
The reason there is some dissent from examining other origins are also
two-fold;
Europeans were ready to blame others for their [had to be!] secret sexual
practices [the point: how could 'Puritans' actually get syphilis? <grin> and
'from' American 'savages' ]
and also the nature of many other epidemics were not well known c.
1200-1600 - especially those related to domestic hygiene and the spread of
lethal diseases - and so a 'pox' was a somewhat generic term and catch-all.
See that excellent writer, Dorothy Hartley.
Therefore it is necessary to gain a sense of proportion - and also to beware
the reporter's motive which can more than shade issues.
I would say from an anthropological basis the very idea of
Columbian-oriented syphilis is extraordinarily naive, as if STD's were
unknown before Columbus. This form of Montezuma's revenge was the cost of
accelerated rapacity by New World hoodlums, free of cloying
Euro-inhibitions.
Phil Innes
help bot
> Taylor,
> I do not intend to be drun into another "high arch urination contest"
> with you. However the phrase struch you is of little concern to me .
> As for being inaccurate as to the worldwide impact of syphillis
> further investigation might be in order on your half. My comment in no
> way made light of the 17 million dead in 50 years of European invasion
> of the Americas. The barbarity of the enslavement of indeginous
> peoples by Europeans in no small part led to the import of African
> slaves and an entirely new and ugly chapter in history.
>
> What I would hope you might do before you off handedly dismiss
> anything coming from someone you dislike is to first research the
> matter. While the utter decimation of nearly an entire race can and
> should be in noway excused or pardoned, the socio-economic impact on
> Eurpoean history and indeed world history of syphillis cannot be
> ignored.
> Even Shakespere wrote of it! The means of transmission is what kept it
> in the shadows. Compare the total number of deaths from syphillis
> since 1492 and the death from small pox through today and then
> belittle my comment.
> Rob
BTW, has anyone ever *seen* the poster known as
Phillip Innes and the poster known as "Rob" in the
same place, at the same time? I somehow very much
doubt it.
It's akin to the case of Clark Kent and a strange-
dresser known as Superman. Nobody ever saw them
both at the same place, at the same time, nor could
they figure why. One theory has it that Clark Kent
was so put off by Superman's poor taste in clothing
that he studiously avoided the latter at all cost.
But another theory was that PI and Rob were
nothing more than one and the same guy, posting
under two different handles! This theory would, for
instance, account for all eight of the following
anomalies:
1) Neither "Rob" nor PI can spell to save their own life.
2) Both seem to make random, offhand references to a
fellow called Shakespeare.
3) Both always appear in the same threads, as if by
magic, and certainly not just by coincidence.
4) Phil Innes desperately needed a friend, and now he
has one (well, sort of).
5) Neither PI nor "Rob" can play chess worth a hoot.
6. One minute "Rob" pretends to a level of intelligence
no greater than that of a young child; the next, he is
carelessly spouting phrases such as "socio-economic
impact on 'Europoean' history and indeed world history...".
7. Neither "Rob" nor his imaginary friend, Phil Innes,
can spell to save their life. I say "their life" on account
of the fact that when "Rob" dies, his imagination will
cease to exist. (Or did I get that backwards?)
And
8. Neither "Rob" nor Phil Innes can play chess worth
a hoot. Coincidence?
-- help bot
Chess One
> On Feb 16, 3:34 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
A Popular [frequent anyway] Commentator on his
Paranoia-of-the-Day
> BTW, has anyone ever *seen* the poster known as
> Phillip Innes and the poster known as "Rob" in the
> same place, at the same time? I somehow very much
> doubt it.
Gosh, I even have photos of Innes, Mitchell, Palatnik, Polgar, Onishuk,
Gulko and Stripunky + a rock band. Facts are boring in the cornfields [what
to do with them should they occur?] so lets us pass into gassy regions...
> It's akin to the case of Clark Kent and a strange-
> dresser known as Superman. Nobody ever saw them
> both at the same place, at the same time, nor could
> they figure why. One theory has it that Clark Kent
> was so put off by Superman's poor taste in clothing
> that he studiously avoided the latter at all cost.
For a moment I thought you were going to repeat Stevenson's pun on "Mr.
Hyde", [get it, corn-fella? Hyde like 'hide', see...]. Tell me you get it,
coz sum this utha stuff is goin to be hardern hell for you to figer ...
Superman/Kent in his 'costume' made the dude look like a giant imbecile
infant in romper-suit, with all the intellectual capability of a back-hoe.
To be on topic, like many GMs, Superman was tricked into goin north to the
Cornfield of Solitude or 'Winter' Place, where he was poisoned by
Kingstonite, a lethal emanation to real chess players.
> But another theory was that PI and Rob were
> nothing more than one and the same guy, posting
> under two different handles! This theory would, for
> instance, account for all eight of the following
> anomalies:
>
> 1) Neither "Rob" nor PI can spell to save their own life.
kan to "two sayve the're owen lief"
> 2) Both seem to make random, offhand references to a
> fellow called Shakespeare.
fellow? you think he was a bloke? cors, you might mean Billy-Joe Shagspur,
the glover's son
It is obvious to serious study and a candid mind that this Shakespeare was
in fact the pre-incarnation of Elvys.
> 3) Both always appear in the same threads, as if by
> magic, and certainly not just by coincidence.
what is not know to the bot is 'magic' to him! but let us not mock
country-boys, who only been to town a few times, and even then never got
further than the mall parking lot before fearing the coincidence of all
those people going in - WHY? - an alien plot to get everyone together to
'change their minds?' - gotta be sompun spooky going on - maybe best thing
is to high tail it home?
> 4) Phil Innes desperately needed a friend, and now he
> has one (well, sort of).
Jealousy! But if I can call you frankly:
Dear Frankly, if I was in the next field as you, weed proberlie be come
frens, n maybe evn make a maze in that ther corn, with a chess position in
it, Fischer vs Taimanov, game 3? put uppa sign and seed who showd up?
> 5) Neither PI nor "Rob" can play chess worth a hoot.
that is true of any amount of people, and not only! its also true of owls,
eg
> 6. One minute "Rob" pretends to a level of intelligence
> no greater than that of a young child;
The young Super-Rob in Kentian-manifestation? Korss, he has to guard his
identity a lot! Otherwise peepel get jellus overn defeaten Balair, in a fair
fight of 317 rounds with hardly no gowgin. Thas what parernerds don't get
about Kent, he is /supposed/ not to excite investigation - [!!DOH!!] but
sometimes the rays jes break out and you can hardly help it!
see if you can understand that bit - go round the field at least twice
thinkin pretty hard on it before replyin, dont get detractored by no crows
> the next, he is
> carelessly spouting phrases such as "socio-economic
> impact on 'Europoean' history and indeed world history...".
speelin satroshous init? shud be Yurpeen according to carl sagan, a Yurp
full of Forn Yuman Beens.
> 7. Neither "Rob" nor his imaginary friend, Phil Innes,
> can spell to save their life.
what a poor finish - forgot yew alredy sed it, din u? lissen - if yor bored
with yor owen joeks, doughn't goon shering em
> I say "their life" on account
> of the fact that when "Rob" dies, his imagination will
> cease to exist. (Or did I get that backwards?)
>
> And
>
> 8. Neither "Rob" nor Phil Innes can play chess worth
> a hoot. Coincidence?
when you are out in your field a-wondrin like this, is there /anything at
all/ that doesn't seem suspicious? how come that crow is flying over there
where that other crow just went? are they talkin about you? commies? sum
sort of cult-thing, fore you know it the'll be vegetarians in town, wutever
that is
i wonder if anywun will play chess with yew this year or yule even meet
anyone to be suspichus of. if only yew could do that yoo cud be sespitchis
of real people in publick stead of having to pretend real people don't
exist, which is the other way about morer less, and which in yor mind maybe
a big advanss or at leest a change
> -- help bot
thank you for sharing,
Cordially, SuperZed!@
Rob
> "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171791186.9...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 16, 3:34 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> A Popular [frequent anyway] Commentator on his
>
> Paranoia-of-the-Day
>
> > BTW, has anyone ever *seen* the poster known as
> > Phillip Innes and the poster known as "Rob" in the
> > same place, at the same time? I somehow very much
> > doubt it.
>
Oh, Lots of folks know me. There are even whole web sites about
me. :-)
> Gosh, I even have photos of Innes, Mitchell, Palatnik, Polgar, Onishuk,
> Gulko and Stripunky + a rock band. Facts are boring in the cornfields [what
> to do with them should they occur?] so lets us pass into gassy regions...
>
> > It's akin to the case of Clark Kent and a strange-
> > dresser known as Superman. Nobody ever saw them
> > both at the same place, at the same time, nor could
> > they figure why. One theory has it that Clark Kent
> > was so put off by Superman's poor taste in clothing
> > that he studiously avoided the latter at all cost.
I hope I am Clark. I wold just look aweful in tights and a cape. ( Or
is seeing me in tights and a caoe a "bot fantasy"?)
> For a moment I thought you were going to repeat Stevenson's pun on "Mr.
> Hyde", [get it, corn-fella? Hyde like 'hide', see...]. Tell me you get it,
> coz sum this utha stuff is goin to be hardern hell for you to figer ...
>
> Superman/Kent in his 'costume' made the dude look like a giant imbecile
> infant in romper-suit, with all the intellectual capability of a back-hoe.
>
> To be on topic, like many GMs, Superman was tricked into goin north to the
> Cornfield of Solitude or 'Winter' Place, where he was poisoned by
> Kingstonite, a lethal emanation to real chess players.
>
> > But another theory was that PI and Rob were
> > nothing more than one and the same guy, posting
> > under two different handles! This theory would, for
> > instance, account for all eight of the following
> > anomalies:
That would require too much effort. Remember Capa's credo and apply it
here.
> > 1) Neither "Rob" nor PI can spell to save their own life.
My problem isnt so much spelling as it is typing and a dyslexic
problem.
> kan to "two sayve the're owen lief"
>
> > 2) Both seem to make random, offhand references to a
> > fellow called Shakespeare.
I do that to twead certain peoples noses who feign intellectual
superority.
> fellow? you think he was a bloke? cors, you might mean Billy-Joe Shagspur,
> the glover's son
>
> It is obvious to serious study and a candid mind that this Shakespeare was
> in fact the pre-incarnation of Elvys.
> > 3) Both always appear in the same threads, as if by
> > magic, and certainly not just by coincidence.
So do you. Are you me? And am I you? Or all we both Phil?
> what is not know to the bot is 'magic' to him! but let us not mock
> country-boys, who only been to town a few times, and even then never got
> further than the mall parking lot before fearing the coincidence of all
> those people going in - WHY? - an alien plot to get everyone together to
> 'change their minds?' - gotta be sompun spooky going on - maybe best thing
> is to high tail it home?
>
> > 4) Phil Innes desperately needed a friend, and now he
> > has one (well, sort of).
Poor lonely bot. I shoould introduce you to Zed.
> Jealousy! But if I can call you frankly:
>
> Dear Frankly, if I was in the next field as you, weed proberlie be come
> frens, n maybe evn make a maze in that ther corn, with a chess position in
> it, Fischer vs Taimanov, game 3? put uppa sign and seed who showd up?
>
> > 5) Neither PI nor "Rob" can play chess worth a hoot.
Repeting oneselfis a bad sign bot.
> that is true of any amount of people, and not only! its also true of owls,
> eg
>
> > 6. One minute "Rob" pretends to a level of intelligence
> > no greater than that of a young child;
My innocent spirit belies my massive intellect. LOL
> The young Super-Rob in Kentian-manifestation? Korss, he has to guard his
> identity a lot! Otherwise peepel get jellus overn defeaten Balair, in a fair
> fight of 317 rounds with hardly no gowgin. Thas what parernerds don't get
> about Kent, he is /supposed/ not to excite investigation - [!!DOH!!] but
> sometimes the rays jes break out and you can hardly help it!
>
> see if you can understand that bit - go round the field at least twice
> thinkin pretty hard on it before replyin, dont get detractored by no crows
>
> > the next, he is
> > carelessly spouting phrases such as "socio-economic
> > impact on 'Europoean' history and indeed world history...".
>
> speelin satroshous init? shud be Yurpeen according to carl sagan, a Yurp
> full of Forn Yuman Beens.
>
> > 7. Neither "Rob" nor his imaginary friend, Phil Innes,
> > can spell to save their life.
Thrid time is charms.. What is repeting oneself a system of I wonder?
> what a poor finish - forgot yew alredy sed it, din u? lissen - if yor bored
> with yor owen joeks, doughn't goon shering em
>
> > I say "their life" on account
> > of the fact that when "Rob" dies, his imagination will
> > cease to exist. (Or did I get that backwards?)
>
> > And
>
> > 8. Neither "Rob" nor Phil Innes can play chess worth
> > a hoot. Coincidence?
One this point you are wrong. Phil Innes is a wonderful player and is
in most cases modest in his ability.
> when you are out in your field a-wondrin like this, is there /anything at
> all/ that doesn't seem suspicious? how come that crow is flying over there
> where that other crow just went? are they talkin about you? commies? sum
> sort of cult-thing, fore you know it the'll be vegetarians in town, wutever
> that is
>
> i wonder if anywun will play chess with yew this year or yule even meet
> anyone to be suspichus of. if only yew could do that yoo cud be sespitchis
> of real people in publick stead of having to pretend real people don't
> exist, which is the other way about morer less, and which in yor mind maybe
> a big advanss or at leest a change
>
> > -- help bot
>
> thank you for sharing,
>
> Cordially, SuperZed!@
Rob
parrt...@cs.com
ARE the same person, though they pretend not to know each other.
And neither of them can spell to save their own life.
<Neither "Rob" nor PI can spell to save their own life.> -- Greg
Kennedy, a pot calling the kettle black
Rob wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:13 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1171791186.9...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On Feb 16, 3:34 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > A Popular [frequent anyway] Commentator on his
> >
> > Paranoia-of-the-Day
> >
> > > BTW, has anyone ever *seen* the poster known as
> > > Phillip Innes and the poster known as "Rob" in the
> > > same place, at the same time? I somehow very much
> > > doubt it.
> >
>
> Oh, Lots of folks know me. There are even whole web sites about
> me. :-)
> .
Inconnux
>> Taylor,
>> Are you saying that I am wrong? Are you saying that they did not
>> infect Europeans? I did not mean to imply that Europeans were wiped
>> out but to indicate that the transmission of disease is a two way
>> street.
>
> The phrase "helped equalize matters" struck me as both inaccurate
> and in bad taste. The effects of the diseases transmitted between the
> two populations were nowhere near equal. As far as I know, a much
> higher proportion of the native American population perished from
> European-borne diseases than vice versa. Not to mention enslavement
> and genocide. If it was "a two-way street," the traffic was largely in
> one direction.
>
>
large portions of the native american population. I highly doubt the
Native americans purposely spread the STD's.
help bot
> > > 8. Neither "Rob" nor Phil Innes can play chess worth
> > > a hoot. Coincidence?
>
> One this point you are wrong. Phil Innes is a wonderful player and is
> in most cases modest in his ability.
Okay, so *maybe* out of nine points I may have gotten
one wrong. Big deal. The point is, you both appear in
the same threads, like a master and his puppy-dog, who
follows and yaps. In any event, all twelve of my other points
cannot be refuted, so your attempt to shoot down this one
still leaves the other thirteen to be addressed.
> > when you are out in your field a-wondrin like this, is there /anything at
> > all/ that doesn't seem suspicious? how come that crow is flying over there
> > where that other crow just went?
Idiot! Those are not crows. They are geese; and the reason
is obvious: the snow has blinded them!
Besides, geese are creatures who live in flocks, and who
have *good reason* to stick together in groups, for it is a
matter of survival.
> > i wonder if anywun will play chess with yew this year or yule even meet
> > anyone to be suspichus of.
FYI: I have been having no trouble at all lining up vicitms
at RedHotPawn. They seem to almost enjoy being massacred
by my vastly superior chess skill. Even as we speak, the
bodies of slain victims fall at my feet, one after another. (I am
beginning to wonder if GM Fischer even knows about this site,
for not one has been able to last over about 30 moves.)
-----------
Even if my theory of dual-identity is wrong, the alternatives
don't look good; a typing lapdog? Or maybe a poorly written
defender-bot? So far, the only good thing I can say for the
"Rob" creature is that it is not so longwinded and arrogant as
its master, IM Innes. Oh, and that it no doubt would make
Sanny very happy by handily losing to his chess program;
one should not underestimate the value of imparting
happiness to others -- even to those such as Sanny.
One day perhaps, the Rob creature may develop a mind of
its own, and suddenly dare to think for itself -- no longer a
mere mind-slave of Master Innes. I am reminded of the
poor creature "I-gor" from a Mel Brooks film. Except he was
a bit taller, and quite the lady-killer.
-- help bot
help bot
> HELP BOT AND GREG KENNEDY
>
> ARE the same person, though they pretend not to know each other.
I dare say he should not remember me -- not after the
unmemorable performance I turned in. The scum dared
to play the French Defense (which is quite busted, you know),
and what's unbearable is that I actually lost! But that was
before I became a notorious chess genius. Now he would
stand no chance, I'm sure. He must be old and senile by
now, like GM Evans.
> And neither of them can spell to save their own life.
As for me, I often resort to using dictionary.com to look up
unfamiliar words. But sometimes I am too lazy, and just
rely upon my generally superior intellect. Fortunately, I don't
often find my mind so completely muddled as to churn out
some unintelligible gobbledygook, such as one paragraph
recently posted by Mr. Parr, in an apparent state of drunken
stupor. Even so, on the whole I find Mr. Parr's writing style
to be quite good, except that he is hopelessly incompetent
when it comes to his ad hominem technique. My take is
that this is the result of strong emotions interfering with
the normal thinking process, and when I say "normal" I of
course mean what is normal *for him*.
-- hep bot
Chess One
> On Feb 18, 9:48 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> > > 8. Neither "Rob" nor Phil Innes can play chess worth
>> > > a hoot. Coincidence?
>>
>> One this point you are wrong. Phil Innes is a wonderful player and is
>> in most cases modest in his ability.
>
> Okay, so *maybe* out of nine points I may have gotten
> one wrong. Big deal. The point is, you both appear in
> the same threads, like a master and his puppy-dog, who
> follows and yaps. In any event, all twelve of my other points
> cannot be refuted, so your attempt to shoot down this one
> still leaves the other thirteen to be addressed.
Woof woof! Hey man, you crazy or sumpin?
We just happen to have a similar philosophy in attending to what forwards us
and what holds us back. Sure enough, many people don't really care about
either - do you?
In terms of doggy relationships I have some dozen correspondents who discuss
chess all the time, and the only unusual factor is that this is a /public/
discussion not based on who says what, but /what/ is said - just like chess
itself where the best move is the best move, nomatter who suggests it - and
Rob Mitchell and I are in large agreement to the orientation of chess, what
forwards it and what does not.
Is this collaboration not to your liking to the degree that you publicly
resent it? It seems so.
I am not sure about your other dozen points, since I do not attend much to
things which do not address the overall health of chess issues, and instead
to a personal insistence of preference - which can tend to peevishness, no?
> -----------
>
> Even if my theory of dual-identity is wrong, the alternatives
> don't look good; a typing lapdog? Or maybe a poorly written
> defender-bot? So far, the only good thing I can say for the
> "Rob" creature is that it is not so longwinded and arrogant as
> its master, IM Innes.
I think you are ready to attend an editorial conference, where the only
insistence is on subject matter and who will actually do what. This may seem
like arrogance, but is in fact a cooperative venture of those who would do
things, rather than regret things. Your recent writing seems to have placed
you in this latter category to the extent that any group venture is darkly
suspicious that real people could do it - as revealed yet again in your
de-humanising language, dogs in this instance.
You are no doubt unconsciouss of your usage - but I am a European and I
really don't like what happened to masses of people in Europe when others
spoke of them this way.
But if you want a job in chess I'll get you one, since you can and do write.
What subject area in chess would you like to address that is of interest to
any public?
> One day perhaps, the Rob creature may develop a mind of
> its own, and suddenly dare to think for itself
Do you note this trend of your associations? Whereas you say I am arrogant,
you profess here in public a defamatory level of speech of literal
dehumanisation. People are not 'it' nor 'dogs'. Get over your self!
> -- no longer a
> mere mind-slave of Master Innes. I am reminded of the
> poor creature "I-gor" from a Mel Brooks film. Except he was
> a bit taller, and quite the lady-killer.
Greg Kennedy ends in make-believe and fantasy representations, not being
quite able to deal with the world of real adults, nor how they behave with
each other - not one word of chess in this message. And yet he is truly
intensely interested in chess writing as he demonstrates every day, but
resists falling into, in this case, my power! <guffaw>
Whereas Mr. Kennedy has forgot that his forefathers too were Celts, as were
the Mitchells and the Inneses; and we say [after a dram, true] 'a man's a
man for a' that!'
Mr. Kennedy possess a fine discrimination and bull-shit detector, all in
one, and more so, better than most others, but fears he will be hurt if he
joins in, like the rest of us. The truth Sir, is that it hurts either way,
by proud isolation one is reduced inexhorably to miserable lonliness, and in
opening up to others, there is pain in vulnerability.
The deciding factor, I suggest, is what benefits accompany each course we
chose in life. Should we not agree then that is well enough. But I am not
going to continue to write with someone using proto-fascist defamations and
dehumanising language about what they must publicly 'suppose' other peoples
lives contain.
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1171257866....@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>A NEW LOW
>
> NMnot Taylor Kingston has lost interest in
> whether his ally Edward Winter has engaged in repeated
> serial lying when claiming copyright for photographs
> that are either in the USCF photo morgue or owned
> outright by the USCF after its purchase of Chess Review.
>
> We knew NMnot's attention span would wander.
>
> As for word from ChessCafe, the silence is deafening
> about its role in attempting to purloin USCF property.
I can confirm the extent of the silence, you can hear it now all the way
from the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol [that's a 'Dyland' line, Larry]
> Finally, I read a claim that the USCF is now
> spiking mention in Nolanland of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's
> role in the Yudina murder and the dentention of
> dissidents in Soviet-era mental asylums, where they
> are tortured. If true, a new low has been achieved by
> Mike the Spike.
I wonder if it is more agreeable at Nolanland to talk about the Kalmyk women
who frequently go on hunger strike asking why they, peasants, should
subsidise rich country's chess play?
Probably some copyright problems in saying so? Or do we got some
rentier-Lasky attitude?
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
> I can confirm the extent of the silence, you can hear it now all the way
> from the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol [that's a 'Dyland' line, Larry]
Yep, from the song "Idiot Wind." A title very fitting for most of
what goes on in this forum.
parrt...@cs.com
>NMnot Taylor Kingston has lost interest in
whether his ally Edward Winter has engaged in
repeated serial lying when claiming copyright for
photographs that are either in the USCF photo
morgue or owned outright by the USCF after its
purchase of Chess Review. We knew NMnot's
attention span would wander. As for word from
ChessCafe, the silence is deafening.> -- - Larry Parr
Dear Phil Innes,
Taylor Kingston's attention still wanders. No doubt.
The deafening silence about Edward Winter's
claim at the ChessCafe to own many hundreds of
photographs would test any hearing aid. Our NMnot
does not wish to discuss the subject, and as a
libertarian, I support his right to silence.
Nor, Phil, need Mr. 2300+ Elo discuss his career
under false names on this forum, when he then praised
his own postings! If he were to speak frankly, I imagine
the explanation would run as follows: "I regard
myself as an honest man. In a moment of weakness,
caused by constant attacks from evil agents such as Sam
Sloan and Larry Parr, I took to adopting false names in order
to praise myself. This was wrong, but my fundamental essence
remains sound."
Something like that.
It helps to place oneself in the other guy's
shoes. By the way, my response to NMnot and the above
would be that no fundamentally sound moral personality
would be knocked from its moorings by attacks on these
chess forums -- of all places.
If NMnot were facing ruination, if he were
struggling to keep family together and the like, then
lapses would be far more understandable. None of us
can say with certainty what we would do in similar
circumstances. But when one permits ego to prompt
serial lying about one's identity here, then one is
not, in truth, a rock-ribbed personification of ethics.
In truth, contra NMnot's claim, he does not
entertain "standards." Except, to be sure, low ones.
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1172640187.7...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> DEAFENING SILENCE
>
>>NMnot Taylor Kingston has lost interest in
> whether his ally Edward Winter has engaged in
> repeated serial lying when claiming copyright for
> photographs that are either in the USCF photo
> morgue or owned outright by the USCF after its
> purchase of Chess Review. We knew NMnot's
> attention span would wander. As for word from
> ChessCafe, the silence is deafening.> -- - Larry Parr
>
> Dear Phil Innes,
>
> Taylor Kingston's attention still wanders. No doubt.
>
> The deafening silence about Edward Winter's
> claim at the ChessCafe to own many hundreds of
> photographs would test any hearing aid. Our NMnot
> does not wish to discuss the subject, and as a
> libertarian, I support his right to silence.
Dear Lawrence H. Parr,
You mean silence now, rather than then? Do you support the right to be
other-than-silent about stating unsubstantiated 'facts' when the goal is
actually to render others silent on the subject?
> Nor, Phil, need Mr. 2300+ Elo discuss his career
> under false names on this forum, when he then praised
> his own postings! If he were to speak frankly, I imagine
> the explanation would run as follows: "I regard
> myself as an honest man. In a moment of weakness,
> caused by constant attacks from evil agents such as Sam
> Sloan and Larry Parr, I took to adopting false names in order
> to praise myself. This was wrong, but my fundamental essence
> remains sound."
Well, sure. But it seems we are ever conflating topic and personality, as if
usenet discussion of chess were following Saul up that old road, until we
come to Paul. But this is a philosophy - and a biblical but untestable
factor would be to assess Saul's and Paul's chess games and see if we can
tell any difference. <grin>
Perhaps a more modern analogy would be Wagner - is his music less
interesting to you after you discover Herr Wolfie liked him?
What I can't determine about Lord K is if he can determine anything about
his Self, from his behavior, or if these are synonyms to him - and further,
some measure of looking at chess histories as necessarily collaborative
efforts where it is more important to qualify how you know something, rather
than advocate the same thing. Nothing wrong with advocacy as such, but
advocacy ain't history.
> Something like that.
>
> It helps to place oneself in the other guy's
> shoes. By the way, my response to NMnot and the above
> would be that no fundamentally sound moral personality
> would be knocked from its moorings by attacks on these
> chess forums -- of all places.
I think an exception is that if usenet rhetoric was your actual base of
sense. And any rhetoric is a form of self promotion and attempt to influence
other people. This comes to grief when we discover that other people
actually have a different basis, one we cannot understand, and while we can
see their ideas are imperfect, or not perfectly represented to us, we can't
tell one from t'other! [ROFL]
> If NMnot were facing ruination, if he were
> struggling to keep family together and the like, then
> lapses would be far more understandable. None of us
> can say with certainty what we would do in similar
> circumstances. But when one permits ego to prompt
> serial lying about one's identity here, then one is
> not, in truth, a rock-ribbed personification of ethics.
>
> In truth, contra NMnot's claim, he does not
> entertain "standards." Except, to be sure, low ones.
I am not minded to be so severe [albeit, trashing other people in every -
yes, every post ain't likable, unless you likes your likings on the
dark-side]. I think the difficulty with Anons or pseudo-identities seems to
be this: that general readers attain a sense from real posters who own what
they say as emerging from their own experiences, as a natural perspective.
If you cannot refer to your real life then you are perforce reduced to
rather hypothetical representations of what you don't admit or even know
['pathic' discourses], and an abandonment of personal verisimilitude
entirely, and you hitch-hike on other people's lives, which is indeed to
live a ghostly second-hand and even vampiric form of existence.
But mostly I find this absent-persona stuff so boring! It so rarely contains
any natural feeling for the game, certainly not enough to talk about it
directly with other adults - and this eliminates real conversation, and only
allows satirical interrogation as means of public discourse.
That word 'standards' is interesting. It is similar to 'morals' the real
sense of which emerges from [L.] MORES, which means custom - and in fact
indifferently represents both high and low custom - and had no 'moral' sense
to it at all! But was a reflection of what people actually did, rather than
eg, what they said they did, and any rhetoric of preference or
interpretation.
Perhaps significantly in order to find our modern sense of 'standard' we
have to regress from Rome to Greece, since the Romans had not much need of
ETHICS when force would do! And Greek ethics were of 2 types - the lowest
standard was called the Law. Other and higher standards were required
elsewhere, either as specific agreements to enter some realm of life, or as
elected standards for personal life.
It is only in sacred writings of all cultures that we see a concinnity; a
conjunctio of these two factors, and what happens then! Such writings are
reflected in religions, but essentially I use the term 'sacred'
deliberately - with the sense of its zyzygous relationship to profane - and
indeed one cannot exist without the other!
Interestingly I have tried some of these [simple, sure, but simple is hard!]
ideas on people from differing cultures, and with religious people too. They
can agree that it would form what they understand to be the basis of their
own deep culture - and indeed, they would further agree to accord with
anyone on such a basis from other cultures.
That, Sir, I suggest is a significant agreement.
Meanwhile, the very modest arena of chess does form one social function
which is /also/ socially valuable in all cultures. It is a form of
engagement of aggression into a /ritual/ conflict which stands between
tensions and sending the bombers, or blasting away with the Saturday-night
special. One struggles to think of other cultural intercessionary activities
which are available to anyone the same way.
Cordially, Phil Innes