Guess Who's Coming To Dinner
parrt...@cs.com
I wrote that in a vast majority of instances, the issue of
interracial marriage for parents is class and moolah.
Here is a review by Roger Ebert of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.
His point is not the same as the point in the movie. He notes that
Hollywood pulls out of the bag all of its tricks to make the marriage
acceptable to the audience, i.e. Poitier is rich, mobile, from a good
family and all the rest.
Point made. Hollywood was speaking to the audience -- the vast
majority with common sense that I mentioned.
Message, when shorn of all the gobbledygook: a black man with a
doctor's degree, status, money, good mannners, good clothes is more
worthwhile than sex-rgcp obsessed white human messes such as, say, Bill
Brock and Vince Hart (two names that somehow just popped to mind).
Makes sense to me.
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
By Roger Ebert / Hanuary 25, 1968
Cast & Credits
Matt Drayton Spencer Tracy
Christina Drayton Katharine Hepburn
John Prentice Sidney Poitier
Joey Drayton Katharine Houghton
Msgr. Ryan Cecil Kellaway
Mrs. Prentice Beah Richards
Mr. Prentice Roy E. Glenn Sr.
Tillie Isabell Sanford
Columbia presents a Stanley Kramer production, directed by Kramer from
ascreenplay by William Rose. Photographed in color by Sam Leavitt.
Yes, there are serious faults in
Stanley Kramer's "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," but they are overcome
by the virtues of this delightfully old-fashionedfilm. It would be easy
to tear the plot to shreds and catch Kramer in theact of copping out.
But why? On its own terms, this film is a joy to see,an evening of
superb entertainment.
Entertainment, I think, is thekey word here. Kramer has taken a
controversial subject (interracial marriage)and insulated it with every
trick in the Hollywood bag. There are glamorousstar performances by
Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy made more poignant by his death.
There is shameless schmaltz (the titlesong, so help me, advises folks
to give a little, take a little, let yourpoor heart break a little,
etc.). The minor roles are filled with crashingstereotypes, like a
Negro maid who must be Rochester's sister and an Irishmonsignor with a
brogue so fey and eyes so twinkling he makes Bing Crosby look like a
Protestant.
And there is the plot, borrowed from countless other drawing room
comediesabout "ineligible" suitors. Only this time the controversial
suitor is nota socialist ("Man and Superman"), a newspaper reporter
("The PhiladelphiaStory") or even a spinster ("Cactus Flower") -- but a
Negro.
Of course, the negro is Sidney Poitier. He is a noble, rich,
intelligent, handsome, ethical medical expert whoserves on United
Nations committees when he's not hurrying off to Africa,Asia,
Switzerland and all those other places where his genius is
required.During a vacation in Hawaii, he meets Katharine Houghton, and
they fall in love and come home to break the news to her parents.
Miss Hepburn takes the news rather well ("Just let me sit down a moment
andI'll be all right"), but Tracy has his doubts. Although he is a
liberal newspaperpublisher and a crusader against prejudice, he doesn't
want to be hurriedinto making up his mind. And that's the trouble.
Poitier has to catch the10 p.m. flight to Geneva, you see, so Tracy has
to decide before then.
It is easy to ridicule this deadline as contrived and artificial: and
itis easy to argue that Poitier's character is too perfect to be
convincing.But neither of these aspects bothered me. The artificial
deadline is a conventionof drawing room comedies. It provides automatic
suspense and keeps the actionwithin a short span of time. And Poitier's
"perfect Negro" is no more perfectthan Miss Houghton's perfect liberal
daughter, Miss Hepburn's perfect Rockof Gibraltar mother and Tracy's
perfect Spencer Tracy.
The things that did bother me were more subtle. Despite Poitier's
reluctance,Miss Hougton insists that HIS parents also be invited to
dinner. They area pleasant middle-aged couple (played by Roy E. Glenn
Sr. and Beah Richards), who turn out to be the most believable
characters in the story. But their presence leads to two troublesome
scenes.
The first occurs when Poitier (who has been unfailingly polite and
deferentialto Tracy) backs his own father into a corner and lectures
him. The Negrofather, like the white one, opposes interracial marriage.
And Poitier, whohas already agreed to abide by Tracy's decision,
cruelly attacks his ownfather's position.
The words ring false. Poitier accuses his fatherof being an Uncle Tom:
"Your generation will always think of itself as Negrofirst and a man
second. I think of myself as a man." In a cruel switch, hethreatens to
disown his father if he opposes the marriage. This speech doesn'tseem
consistent with Poitier's character elsewhere in the film. Contrastedto
Poitier's awe of Tracy, it seems to establish the older Negro as a
second-classfather.
The second bothersome scene is similar to the first. Poitier'smother
lectures Tracy, informing him that he really opposes the
marriagebecause he has forgotten what it means to be in love. Tracy has
successfullyweathered all other arguments, but this one shakes him.
After a long periodof thought, he agrees to the marriage.
What it boils down to, then,is that the two fathers are overcome by
implied attacks on their masculinity.The race question becomes
secondary; what Tracy really had to decide is ifhe feels inadequate as
a man. Kramer accomplishes this transition so subtlyyou hardly notice
it. But it is the serious flaw in his plot, I think.
Still, perhaps Kramer was being more clever than we imagine. He has
pointedout in interviews that his film does accomplish its purpose,
after all. Andit does. Here is a film about interracial marriage that
has the audiencethrowing rice. The women in the audience can usually be
counted on to identifywith the love story. I suppose. But what about
those men? Will love conquerprejudice? I wonder if Kramer isn't
sneaking up on one of the underlyingcauses of racial prejudice when he
implies that the fathers feel their masculinitythreatened.
All of these deep profundities aside, however, let me say that "Guess
Who's Coming to Dinner" is a magnificent piece of entertainment. It
will make you laugh and mayeven make you cry. When old, gray-haired,
weather-beaten Spencer Tracy turns to Katharine Hepburn and declares,
by God, that he DOES remember what it is like to be in love, there is
nothing to do but believe him.
politi...@gmail.com
federation)? If not, what is the basis for Sloan's claim to be a
"former master"?
Has Larry Parr ever examined the *content* of the various Sloan
Pokémon porn pages--links available upon request--and commented upon
Sloan's character?
politi...@gmail.com
klg...@mailinator.com
> ...sex-rgcp obsessed white human messes
We must have wildly different understandings of of either
"shorn" or "gobbledygook" or both
Taylor Kingston
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> Message, when shorn of all the gobbledygook:
The same message as almost any Larry Parr post: Larry Parr is always
right, those who disagree with him are always wrong, and stupid,
ignorant and foolish to boot. We know this because Parr himself says
so.
Seriously, Larry, do you honestly think a Hollywood movie constitutes
sociological evidence? Is this the best you can do to prove your thesis
that laissez faire economics will eliminate racism?
jame...@aol.com
>sociological evidence? Is this the best you can do to prove your thesis
>that laissez faire economics will eliminate racism?
It does seem rather odd - especially his contention that such laissez
faire economics would be liberating to the masses. This seems to speak
against all cross-cultural evidence I have seen; look at Finland, for
example. High taxes, and the happiest and smartest people in the world,
according to many polls - and they have benefitted greatly from the
"Information Age," whereas Larry notes, Americans have not (and I
realize that such cross-cultural comparisons are always dodgy). In
fact, a headline today trumpeted how companies are getting richer and
individuals are not in this economic uptime.
But I don't feel qualified to argue with him on the topic, except to
note, as you do, that his rationalizations seem to be no different or
less contorted than the ones communists used to promote their economic
religion.
Interestingly, I finally finishing watching another Kramer movie,
"Judgment at Nuremberg," which due to the emotions it stirred it me
(positive and negative), I had only watched bits and piece of over the
last 40 years (when you know your own mother, at nine years of age, was
spending her time in bomb shelters, and had to live through that
post-war destruction through no fault of her own, you can be emotional
about such things).
So perhaps Kramer liked to tackle these difficult topics, and used
emotion to make his point. OK for a movie, as Kingston notes, but to
use as proof for Larry's theories on economics?
Then finally to the chess tie-in so Bill won't say "Give a hoot, don't
pollute"- would Parr suggest such laissez-faire policies for the USCF
and the chess world in general to promote chess? It seems to me that we
are already so laissez-faire in chess that nothing ever gets done -
except for those politicians who personally profit from chess, at the
expense of the game, of course.
I would be very interested to hear Parr's view on this comment of mine.
David Richerby
Please find a more appropriate newsgroup for your film reviews or, at the
very least, mark them as off-topic so they can be easily killfiled.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Broken Confusing Puzzle (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an intriguing conundrum but you
can't understand it and it doesn't
work!
Vince Hart
Larry has some very funny ideas about evidence. When his friend
hypothesizes that someone might object to his pictures of his children
in the bathtub, he considers that to be evidence that his freedoms are
being threatened. On the other hand, he does not believe that a
person's statements about his own actions are any evidence of what the
person actually did.
Vince Hart
Catalan
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125068074.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It does seem rather odd - especially his contention that such laissez
> faire economics would be liberating to the masses. This seems to speak
> against all cross-cultural evidence I have seen; look at Finland, for
> example. High taxes, and the happiest and smartest people in the world,
> according to many polls -
They are the happiest and smartest? Why then do they have the highest
suicide rate in the world?
jame...@aol.com
>suicide rate in the world?
Stan, you are going to force me to agree with Parr about you if you
continue such nonsense.
There are 3 countries in the most recent WHO database who surpass
Finland's *male* suicide rate, which is the biggest problem. Two of
them had rates *double* that of Finland.
I also noted in that post the danger of cross-cultural comparisons....
I mean, what does the word "happy" mean? It is disingenuous at best to
assume everyone defines it in the same way.
In 1983, I earned a degree in Gerontology and Adult Development. Death
and Dying was a large component of that. At that time, the prevalent
theory was that Nordic countries had higher suicide rates due to a
number of factors, including the stoicism expected of males, the fact
that committing suicide due to say, advanced disease was not seen in
the same light as many other countries.
Much has changed even since the last set of WHO data has been
collected. Them being the "happiest and smartest" is a fairly recent
development, as is the boom in another country, Ireland's economy, due
to the information revolution (don't know how that would fit into
Parr's world economic view).
I would need to do deeper research, but I believe the suicide rate
among males has shown improvement in recent years in Finland. But could
you do a little research before you spout off? Even Larry does that.
jame...@aol.com
articles I read on Finland; and there seems to be a good discussion on
both sides, for example, one person indicated he would rather live in a
country that had a high suicide rate than the incredible homicide rate
we have in the U.S. (at least taking my own life is *my* choice - my
goodness, I have crossed from conservative to libertarian!), and
another mentioned something I forgot - the seasonal affective
disorders. This is a good blog, the author is biased but allows for
reasonable responses to his views:
http://newmarksdoor.typepad.com/mainblog/2005/08/reason_897235_w.html
I found it very interesting because when I entered problem chess, I
found the Finns the most enjoyable to work with and in fact there was
very little ego involved - each person was a member of a team and we
all shared full credit for the problems we composed. I have had more
joint compositions with Finns than anyone else, and I get the same
feeling the original Washington Post author had whenever I work with
them.
politi...@gmail.com
To my knowledge, Sloan has never had a published rating above (or at)
2200 in any national federation. Nor to my knowledge has he had a FIDE
rating at or above 2200.
Could someone check USCF rating lists from 1966-1971?
politi...@gmail.com
Catalan
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125094980.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >They are the happiest and smartest? Why then do they have the highest
>>suicide rate in the world?
>
> Stan, you are going to force me to agree with Parr about you if you
> continue such nonsense.
You sure sound like him.
> There are 3 countries in the most recent WHO database who surpass
> Finland's *male* suicide rate, which is the biggest problem. Two of
> them had rates *double* that of Finland.
Pardon me. Why then do they have the fourth from highest suicide rate in the
world? Do they hold that rank when you count male and female?
> I also noted in that post the danger of cross-cultural comparisons....
> I mean, what does the word "happy" mean? It is disingenuous at best to
> assume everyone defines it in the same way.
Degression.
> In 1983, I earned a degree in Gerontology and Adult Development. Death
> and Dying was a large component of that. At that time, the prevalent
> theory was that Nordic countries had higher suicide rates due to a
> number of factors, including the stoicism expected of males, the fact
> that committing suicide due to say, advanced disease was not seen in
> the same light as many other countries.
They also drink a hell of a lot.
> Much has changed even since the last set of WHO data has been
> collected. Them being the "happiest and smartest" is a fairly recent
> development, as is the boom in another country, Ireland's economy, due
> to the information revolution (don't know how that would fit into
> Parr's world economic view).
Okay Larry, spin it however you want.
> I would need to do deeper research, but I believe the suicide rate
> among males has shown improvement in recent years in Finland. But could
> you do a little research before you spout off? Even Larry does that.
"...but I believe..." Now you sound like Sam. BTW, I did.
parrt...@cs.com
I will make this fairly short.
Having spent about four months of my life in Scandinavia, I figure
that long winters with little daylight are reflected in the suicide
rate. Swedes, Finns and Norwegians have traditionally been reckoned as
taciturn and darkish figures. Alcoholism is rampant in many towns. I
remember driving through a Swedish town early one summer Sunday
morning, and the main street looked like something out of Goldfinger.
Bodies strewn everywhere. Not dead, I believe. But dead drunk.
As for the example of Sidney Poitier, my point had nothing to do
with the movie per se. It had to do with what Hollywood marketing
people figured was the common sense of the race issue in the 1960s --
or what would sell with an audience. So what does that prove? Not
much. It merely records an observation. I entered as my view that the
common sense of the race problem in America came down to class and
economics.
Laissez faire: the point I made was about its history of
wealth-making. I suggested one well-known economic history, and my
comments on economics were not leavened by reference to a film.
As for what works in building a robust wealthy society, I take my
views from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which is by an large
(notwithstanding the invisible guiding hand) unlike Marx, an a
posteriori work.
James Rynd is correct: cross-cultural comparisons are
difficult. By my observation, the Malays over here seem happier than
the average American -- indeed, far happier. Western expatriates in
Kuala Lumpur notice that you can go for weeks without seeing one of the
locals biting his fingernails.
jame...@aol.com
need to do deeper research..."
Such selective quoting shows either poor tactics on your part or
selective reading...
michael adams
> They are the happiest and smartest? Why then do they have the highest
> suicide rate in the world?
Reindeer meat is tough on the teeth..
jame...@aol.com
>views from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations
Good to know. I know you had to be brief, but may I assume you think
the same holds true for building a robust *chess* society? It's an
interesting question, especially given the dysfunctionality of "chess
economics" over the last - uh- I guess since ever (a read of Pal
Benko's book shows that the USCF of the 1960s was no less fiscally
inept than we have come to know them to be in the last 10 years).
Catalan
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125134548....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Whatever you say Larry.
Nick
> ...
> Having spent about four months of my life in Scandinavia, I figure
> that long winters with little daylight are reflected in the suicide
> rate. Swedes, Finns and Norwegians have traditionally been reckoned
Larry Parr seems to regard the Finns as Scandinavians.
Strictly speaking, the countries of Scandinavia are Denmark, Norway,
and Sweden. Finland is a Nordic country but not a Scandinavian one.
--Nick
Taylor Kingston
Nick wrote:
My Webster's Dictionary (1990 edition) says Scandinavia is "the
region of NW Europe embracing Sweden, Norway, and Denmark," but adds
"Iceland is often included, on ethnic grounds, and Finland sometimes,
on geographical and historical grounds." What Parr said about Seasonal
Affective Disorder (with its very apt acronym SAD), and its possible
effect on the suicide rate, would apply to all those countries due to
latitude and climate.
I know little about the Finns, but one of my favorite things about
them is that supposedly the Elvish languages devised by J.R.R. Tolkien
were based largely on Finnish.
Nick
> Nick wrote:
> > parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> > > Having spent about four months of my life in Scandinavia, I figure
> > > that long winters with little daylight are reflected in the suicide
> > > rate. Swedes, Finns and Norwegians have traditionally been reckoned
> > > as taciturn and darkish figures. ...
> >
> > Larry Parr seems to regard the Finns as Scandinavians.
> > Strictly speaking, the countries of Scandinavia are Denmark, Norway,
> > and Sweden. Finland is a Nordic country but not a Scandinavian one.
>
> My Webster's Dictionary (1990 edition) says Scandinavia is "the
> region of NW Europe embracing Sweden, Norway, and Denmark," but adds
> "Iceland is often included, on ethnic grounds, and Finland sometimes,
> on geographical and historical grounds."
As I recall, the question of whether or not Finland should be
regarded as a Scandinavian country has been previously discussed
in rec.games.chess.misc by several writers: Mr Eggertsson (Iceland),
Simon ('chapman billy'), and me. As far as I can recall, we agreed
that, *strictly speaking*, Finland is *not* a part of Scandinavia.
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia
"These alternative meanings (my note: including Finland as a
part of Scandinavia) are considered incorrect in Scandinavia,
and occasionally some people may take offence by such usage in
English."
--Wikipedia
> What Parr said about Seasonal Affective Disorder (with its very
> apt acronym SAD), and its possible effect on the suicide rate,
> would apply to all those countries due to latitude and climate.
I did *not* comment on the rest of Larry Parr's post, including
anything that he may have written about 'Seasonal Affective Disorder'.
My comment pertained *only* to Larry Parr's apparent reference
to Finland as a part of Scandinavia.
> I know little about the Finns, but one of my favorite things
> about them is that supposedly the Elvish languages devised by
> J.R.R. Tolkien were based largely on Finnish.
Finnish is one of the few non-Indo-European languages in Europe.
On account of that fact and its grammatical complexity, few
foreigners attempt to learn Finnish. Consequently, extremely
few scholars outside of Finland are able to study Finnish
history through reading sources in Finnish.
--Nick
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Finnish is one of the few non-Indo-European languages in Europe.
>On account of that fact and its grammatical complexity, few
>foreigners attempt to learn Finnish. Consequently, extremely
>few scholars outside of Finland are able to study Finnish
>history through reading sources in Finnish.
I've been told Finnish's closest relative is Magyar.
>
>--Nick
Taylor Kingston
Nick wrote:
> I did *not* comment on the rest of Larry Parr's post, including
> anything that he may have written about 'Seasonal Affective Disorder'.
> My comment pertained *only* to Larry Parr's apparent reference
> to Finland as a part of Scandinavia.
*No* kidding. Nick, you need to learn to relax.
Vince Hart
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> SUMMING UP
>
>
> As for the example of Sidney Poitier, my point had nothing to do
> with the movie per se. It had to do with what Hollywood marketing
> people figured was the common sense of the race issue in the 1960s --
> or what would sell with an audience. So what does that prove? Not
> much. It merely records an observation. I entered as my view that the
> common sense of the race problem in America came down to class and
> economics.
>
Parr claims he was "merely record[ing] and observation," but like so
many of his observations (e.g., his observations about the state of
American law or his observations about Sam's felony conviction or
adventures with child prostitutes), it is not so much an observation as
an invention.
Vince Hart
Nick
I previously did not intend to write any further on this matter
as I had been willing to ignore Taylor Kingston as long as he
did not respond to my posts (which did not mention him at all).
Taylor Kingston has a previous record of snipping-out-context
and dishonestly distorting what I have written (though not
in this thread). What Taylor Kingston has written in relation
to me has been discussed at length by me (in private) with
some other readers (plural) in the chess newsgroups. We have
concurred that Taylor Kingston has behaved dishonestly and
inappropriately toward me and that he may continue to do so.
I previously have cited the evidence of Taylor Kingston's
dishonesty in some other threads, and Taylor Kingston usually
has 'responded' by completely snipping the evidence. I can
see no point in reiterating that evidence here because I expect
that Taylor Kingston again would completely snip that evidence.
I also note with disdain that Taylor Kingston evidently
condones racist comments by Stan Booz (his apparent ally)
that Taylor Kingston undoubtedly would have denounced if they
had been made by Sam Sloan. I regard Taylor Kingston's
professed opposition to racism as deeply hypocritical and
evidently motivated only by his assessment of expediency.
And I know that some other readers here share my view of
Taylor Kingston's hypocrisy.
I regard Taylor Kingston as less dishonest than Larry Parr,
but Taylor Kingston's much too dishonest for me to respect
him or to welcome any further communication from him.
If Taylor Kingston insists on attempting to engage me
in any further 'discussion', then I hope that he will not
pretend to be ignorant of what I have written (above).
--Nick
Taylor Kingston
Nick, as I've said before, you would probably feel much better
without the heavy chip you seem to bear on your shoulder. To put that
in different terms, I suggest you stop imagining antagonism where it
does not exist. In the context of this particular thread, I never said
that you addressed anything about SAD -- my mention of it had nothing
to do with you. I respectfully suggest again that you relax, and stop
working so hard at turning friends or neutral parties into enemies.
Mike Murray
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>I respectfully suggest again that you relax,
Patient: "I'm a tipi, I'm a yurt, I'm a tipi, I'm a yurt".
Psychiatrist: "Relax, you're two tents."
Nick
> Nick wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > Nick wrote:
> > > > I did *not* comment on the rest of Larry Parr's post, including
> > > > anything that he may have written about 'Seasonal Affective Disorder'.
> > > > My comment pertained *only* to Larry Parr's apparent reference
> > > > to Finland as a part of Scandinavia.
> > >
> > > *No* kidding. Nick, you need to learn to relax.
> >
> > I previously did not intend to write any further on this matter
> > as I had been willing to ignore Taylor Kingston as long as he
> > did not respond to my posts (which did not mention him at all).
> >
> > Taylor Kingston has a previous record of snipping-out-context
> > and dishonestly distorting what I have written (though not
> > in this thread).
I made it *clear* that my criticisms of Taylor Kingston's dishonesty
toward me did *not* pertain to *his previous posts in this thread*.
> > What Taylor Kingston has written in relation to me has been
> > discussed at length by me (in private) with some other readers
> > (plural) in the chess newsgroups. We have concurred that
> > Taylor Kingston has behaved dishonestly and inappropriately
> > toward me and that he may continue to do so.
And Taylor Kingston's inappropriate behaviour toward me does continue.
> > I previously have cited the evidence of Taylor Kingston's
> > dishonesty in some other threads, and Taylor Kingston usually
> > has 'responded' by completely snipping the evidence. I can
> > see no point in reiterating that evidence here because I expect
> > that Taylor Kingston again would completely snip that evidence.
Again, Taylor Kingston does not show any interest in the evidence
of his dishonesty that I already have cited in public and discussed
at length in private with some other readers in the chess newsgroups.
> > I also note with disdain that Taylor Kingston evidently
> > condones racist comments by Stan Booz (his apparent ally)
> > that Taylor Kingston undoubtedly would have denounced if they
> > had been made by Sam Sloan. I regard Taylor Kingston's
> > professed opposition to racism as deeply hypocritical and
> > evidently motivated only by his assessment of expediency.
> > And I know that some other readers here share my view of
> > Taylor Kingston's hypocrisy.
Again, Taylor Kingston does not show any interest in criticising
the racist comments made by writers other than Sam Sloan.
> > I regard Taylor Kingston as less dishonest than Larry Parr,
> > but Taylor Kingston's much too dishonest for me to respect
> > him or to welcome any further communication from him.
Some friends of mine (who read and sometimes have written in RGC*)
seem to regard Taylor Kingston with comparable disdain.
> > If Taylor Kingston insists on attempting to engage me
> > in any further 'discussion', then I hope that he will not
> > pretend to be ignorant of what I have written (above).
>
> Nick, as I've said before, you would probably feel much better
> without the heavy chip you seem to bear on your shoulder.
Taylor Kingston still prefers to ignore the evidence that
I previously have cited of his dishonesty and hypocrisy.
How often have white men (Taylor Kingston's a white American)
condescendingly told 'men of colour' that we should not act
as though we bear 'a chip on the shoulder' about racism
and the countless lies told to deny or to excuse racism?
> To put that in different terms, I suggest you stop imagining
> antagonism where it does not exist.
Again, I have discussed at length (in private) with some other
readers here the evidence of Taylor Kingston's misbehaviour as
found in his posts. I can recall asking these other readers
questions like "What do you think of Taylor Kingston's motives?"
or "Do you think that it's fair to regard Taylor Kingston as
dishonest?" After much considered discussion, we have been able
to reach substantial agreement about Taylor Kingston's character,
at least as it has been expressed as a writer in rec.games.chess.*.
Our general view of Taylor Kingston's character is quite unfavourable.
> In the context of this particular thread,
Can Taylor Kingston read? I made it clear (above) that my criticisms
of Taylor Kingston were *not* directed toward what he had previously
written in *'this particular thread'*. Taylor Kingston evidently
prefers to ignore the evidence of his past abuses and mention a
case--'this particular thread'--in which I *had not been* claiming
that he has behaved abusively.
> I never said that you addressed anything about SAD -- my mention
> of it had nothing to do with you. I respectfully suggest again
> that you relax, and stop working so hard at turning friends or
> neutral parties into enemies.
Earlier I wrote:
"Taylor Kingston's much too dishonest for me to respect
him or to welcome any further communication from him."
Can Taylor Kingston read?
I never would consider regarding someone as condescending,
dishonest, and hypocritical as Taylor Kingston as my friend.
I am fortunate enough to have some real friends and no need
of whatever Taylor Kingston might feel willing to offer.
I have no doubt, however, that Taylor Kingston would be
more popular than I *inside* an 'all white' private club.
--Nick
michael adams
Reindeer meat is tough on the teeth..
parrt...@cs.com
<Parr claims he was "merely record[ing] and observation," but like so
many of his observations (e.g., his observations about the state of
American law or his observations about Sam's felony conviction or
adventures with child prostitutes), it is
Most of Vinnie Hart's postings have become bitter and senseless.
He has nothing to say about how marketing people both in films and
TV sell the
figure what will keep viewer glued to the idiot box or coming to the
box office.
Where race is concerned that pretty much amounts to either withering
violence at one pole and often sentimental question-begging at the
other pole -- and both poles dominate what generally appears.
Any real discussion of race is taboo in America.
Y
Catalan
"Nick" <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125274966.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I also note with disdain that Taylor Kingston evidently
> condones racist comments by Stan Booz (his apparent ally)
> that Taylor Kingston undoubtedly would have denounced if they
> had been made by Sam Sloan.
You just had to drag me into it.
> I regard Taylor Kingston's
> professed opposition to racism as deeply hypocritical and
> evidently motivated only by his assessment of expediency.
> And I know that some other readers here share my view of
> Taylor Kingston's hypocrisy.
Speaking of hypocrisy, I don't see you taking umbrage at Larry Parr's
blantnat racism.
> I regard Taylor Kingston as less dishonest than Larry Parr,
> but Taylor Kingston's much too dishonest for me to respect
> him or to welcome any further communication from him.
> If Taylor Kingston insists on attempting to engage me
> in any further 'discussion', then I hope that he will not
> pretend to be ignorant of what I have written (above).
You're a fraud Nick.
>> Larry won't do that. You see, Larry sees blacks as inferior too. I
>> discovered this when Larry told a story about how while waiting for a
>> light
>> to change in Newburgh, he watched a black man use his chest to bend a
>> parking meter. Not any man, but a BLACK man. Larry found it important to
>> specify that it wasn't a white man but rather a BLACK man that did this
>> childish act of wanton destruction.
>
> "Instead Mr. Cavallo spends his time
> in New Windsor, which is only a few miles south of Newburgh. Newburgh,
> of course, is one of America's most inflamed rat rectums. About half
> its population feeds at the public welfare trough, and parking costs
> about five cents an hour when the meters are not bent at crazy skew-
> wiff angles. One afternoon (not night!) while driving along the main
> street of Newburgh, I witnessed a sight that has remained with me ever
> since. A mammoth black man with muscles the size of the average
> Japanese apartment in Tokyo rammed his chest into a parking meter.
> He was charging it straight on and eventually bent it nearly in half.
> Any of us would have been in the hospital with a broken collar bone or
> a cracked sternum. Such are the street sights of the New Windsor area."
<- L. Parr>
There are also abandoned homes with busted
windows and, pace Eliot, one may hear rats' feet
over broken glass; a school system in which
Negroes terrorize many of the whites; and entire
districts where Negroes may be espied loitering on
streets, leaning against abandoned store fronts and
milling with intent. Although many have been
weakened by the vicissitudes of life, a majority are
what the British used to call "sturdy beggars" and
to be watched carefully. When driving by, you
could see bottles of "fortified" wine, Thunderbird
and Night Train, littering the sidewalks.<- L. Parr>
Catalan
"Nick" <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125280717.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I have no doubt, however, that Taylor Kingston would be
> more popular than I *inside* an 'all white' private club.
Poor baby. Let's have a pity party for the anonymous Nick (Who may or may
not be of recent African heritage.)
Catalan
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1125286893....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Any real discussion of race is taboo in America.
I wondered why you ignored my reposts of your bigotry.
>> Larry won't do that. You see, Larry sees blacks as inferior too. I
>> discovered this when Larry told a story about how while waiting for a
>> light
>> to change in Newburgh, he watched a black man use his chest to bend a
>> parking meter. Not any man, but a BLACK man. Larry found it important to
>> specify that it wasn't a white man but rather a BLACK man that did this
>> childish act of wanton destruction.
>
> "Instead Mr. Cavallo spends his time
> in New Windsor, which is only a few miles south of Newburgh. Newburgh,
> of course, is one of America's most inflamed rat rectums. About half
> its population feeds at the public welfare trough, and parking costs
> about five cents an hour when the meters are not bent at crazy skew-
> wiff angles. One afternoon (not night!) while driving along the main
> street of Newburgh, I witnessed a sight that has remained with me ever
> since. A mammoth black man with muscles the size of the average
> Japanese apartment in Tokyo rammed his chest into a parking meter.
> He was charging it straight on and eventually bent it nearly in half.
> Any of us would have been in the hospital with a broken collar bone or
> a cracked sternum. Such are the street sights of the New Windsor area."
<- L. Parr>
Larry seems to be obsessed with a rat's ability to void itself.
Vince Hart
I agree that Hollywood marketing people care only about what will sell,
which is one reason why I think it is very difficult to infer anything
about the common sense of the American people based on the plot of a
movie, even if (unlike Parr), someone actually understood the plot of
the film.
Vince Hart
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Again, I have discussed at length (in private) with some other
>readers here the evidence of Taylor Kingston's misbehaviour as
>found in his posts. I can recall asking these other readers
>questions like "What do you think of Taylor Kingston's motives?"
>or "Do you think that it's fair to regard Taylor Kingston as
>dishonest?" After much considered discussion, we have been able
>to reach substantial agreement about Taylor Kingston's character,
>at least as it has been expressed as a writer in rec.games.chess.*.
>Our general view of Taylor Kingston's character is quite unfavourable.
The star chamber has gone to pot.
This is like something out of Kafka.
Mike Murray
<no...@tinsheds.com.au> wrote:
>> >I respectfully suggest again that you relax,
>> Patient: "I'm a tipi, I'm a yurt, I'm a tipi, I'm a yurt".
>> Psychiatrist: "Relax, you're two tents."
>Reindeer meat is tough on the teeth..
Yeah, and it's probably not a good idea to ask Santa for new chompers,
is it?
parrt...@cs.com
<This is like something out of Kafka.> Mike Murray
ELO Grand Coulee NM Taylor Kingston is doing
everything humanly possible to avoid battles here with
Nick Bourbaki. He says that he does not necessarily
disagree with Mr. Bourbaki, that he does not wish to
fight with Mr. Bourbaki, that he sympathizes with Mr.
Bourbaki, that he would -- a judgment based on the
many exchanges between these two -- kiss Mr.
Bourbaki's derriere if the man would only recognize that, he
NM Kingston, is actually well-disposed to him.
But, alas, nothing avails.
Although Mr. Bourbaki places this writer as
first on the Dishonesty Scale, he seems to reserve
more dudgeon for NM Kingston. The only explanations
for the seeming contradiction are either I am too far
beyond the pale for comment or NM Kingston is wormier
in his dishonesty than I, thereby making me a bit more
honestly dishonest (or, possibly, dishonestly
honest?) though to be dishonestly dishonest is to be
honest in the normal sense of the latter. Which I
don't think is Mr. Bourbaki's point about our ego ELO
Grand Coulee.
Mr. Bourbaki is best advised to heed NM
Kingston's crawling for peace or to explain why his
postings attacking my postings lack the venom of those
lambasting the 2300+ ELO gent.
Tapio Huuhka
> Strictly speaking, the countries of Scandinavia are Denmark, Norway,
> and Sweden. Finland is a Nordic country but not a Scandinavian one.
>
> --Nick
Strictly speaking, Scandinavia is a peninsula consisting of Norway and
Sweden. Perhaps it is such a nice word that people prefer to use it
instead of the more accurate "Nordic countries", when they refer to
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland, or some other subset of
these countries.
Tapio
jame...@aol.com
>Our general view of Taylor Kingston's >character is quite unfavourable
Does anyone else think this roundtable discussion included Nick, Nick,
Nick, and of course, Nick?
parrt...@cs.com
>I have no doubt, however, that Taylor Kingston would be more popular than I *inside* an 'all white' private club.> "Nick Bourbaki" (anonymouse)
I continue to counsel Nick Bourbaki to take
notice of NM Taylor Kingston's belly crawling for peace.
My God, man: can't you see it?
NM Kingston is like those Germans dying of thirst
in Sahara, throwing down their arms and surrendering
to Humphrey Bogart. He's delirious, stumbling forward
in thirst-for-peace-induced somnambulation. Take
pity, for crying out loud. Remember the Rgcpeneva
Convention. Learn to take prisoners.
Vinnie Hart simultaneously admits that Hollywood
marketers try to figure out what Americans want but
can't imagine how what Americans want has much to do
with how they think. We call that purposeful
point-missing, unless Mr. Hart figures that the
marketing lads have less a handle on what sells than
he does. En passant, the screenplay for this film (which
only he understands) by William Rose won an Oscar
Stan Booz will never be the same, though somehow
the same as ever. Our "ad hominid" man wonders why
Nick Bourbaki does not address what he calls my
"blantnat" racism, which from anyone else might be
chalked up as a typo but from him must be marked down
as another of those giggle-inducing malapropisms.
Mike Murray objects to a star chamber proceeding
that lacks either stars or chambers. He finds it
beyond Kafkaesque. I find it altogether normal.
Fischer told Bronstein at Mar del Plata that his 17.
P-KR4! in a line of the Ruy was better than B's 17.
K-R2 against Reshevsky at Zurich 1953. Bronstein
replied, "Of course. After seven years one must find
an improvement."
Mr. Bourbaki gets credit for improving on one
idea of Kafka's. It took a while, but he did it. It
is a totally normal progression. Contra Mr. Murray's
usually acute deductions, I find Mr. Bourbaki's
intermittent, private trial of NM Kingston to be one
of the least Kafkaesque activities at rgcp.
sig...@binet.is
Tapio Huuhka wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>
> > Strictly speaking, the countries of Scandinavia are Denmark, Norway,
> > and Sweden. Finland is a Nordic country but not a Scandinavian one.
> >
> > --Nick
>
> Strictly speaking, Scandinavia is a peninsula consisting of Norway and
> Sweden.
Strictly speaking, that is the definition of the Scandinavian
peninsula, Scandinavia is Norway, Sweden and Denmark, strictly speaking.
Taylor Kingston
Nick wrote:
> How often have white men (Taylor Kingston's a white American)
> condescendingly told 'men of colour' that we should not act
> as though we bear 'a chip on the shoulder' about racism
> and the countless lies told to deny or to excuse racism?
Nick, the chip I referred to has nothing to do with racism. You're
against racism? Good, so am I, and so is every decent person. By "a
chip on your shoulder" I referred to your usenet tendency to see
antagonism where it does not exist, to interpret disagreement as
hostility, to blow minor differences out of all proportion. This will
neither combat racism nor aid your digestion, hence my recommendation
that you try to relax.
> Again, Taylor Kingston does not show any interest in criticising
> the racist comments made by writers other than Sam Sloan.
Nick, get real. Neither you nor I have enough lifetimes to combat
every idiotic bigot on the Internet. By your logic, I might as well
conclude that you are a racist because of your failure to protest
Japan's persecution of its Ainu minority, or any number of other racist
acts.
By "writers other than Sam Sloan" I presume you mean, primarily, Stan
Booz? Two comments: (1) I am advised by someone whom I trust, and who
knows Booz personally, that Stan is not racist. (2) He is, however,
blunt and tactless, which leads to remarks that are sometimes highly
offensive. His "Thanks for being my n**ger" is clearly one of those. I
strongly disapprove of such language. Clear enough for you?
> I never would consider regarding someone as condescending,
> dishonest, and hypocritical as Taylor Kingston as my friend.
Nick, my concern for your opinion of me weighs in somewhere between a
fly's feeler and a rat's rump. Now, I again advise you to relax. Or,
you can continue tilting at windmills of your own imagining -- but all
you will get are tilted imaginary windmills.
Catalan
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125318736.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How about Larry Parr?
Catalan
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1125322258....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Stan Booz will never be the same, though somehow
> the same as ever. Our "ad hominid" man wonders why
> Nick Bourbaki does not address what he calls my
> "blantnat" racism, which from anyone else might be
> chalked up as a typo but from him must be marked down
> as another of those giggle-inducing malapropisms.
Other then another ad hominid on me, Larry chooses not to apologize to his
Uncle Tom who posts here as Nick.
Catalan
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1125348743.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> By "writers other than Sam Sloan" I presume you mean, primarily, Stan
> Booz? Two comments: (1) I am advised by someone whom I trust, and who
> knows Booz personally, that Stan is not racist. (2) He is, however,
> blunt and tactless, which leads to remarks that are sometimes highly
> offensive. His "Thanks for being my n**ger" is clearly one of those. I
> strongly disapprove of such language. Clear enough for you?
If by blunt you mean I call a spade a spade, I won't argue. If by tactless
you mean I don't beat around the bush, let's just say I have the courage of
my convictions.
To humor the Parrs, Sloans, and Nicks of the world is a waste of my precious
time. People like Nick aren't qualified enough to even shine my shoes.
Taylor Kingston
Catalan wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1125348743.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > By "writers other than Sam Sloan" I presume you mean, primarily, Stan
> > Booz? Two comments: (1) I am advised by someone whom I trust, and who
> > knows Booz personally, that Stan is not racist. (2) He is, however,
> > blunt and tactless, which leads to remarks that are sometimes highly
> > offensive. His "Thanks for being my n**ger" is clearly one of those. I
> > strongly disapprove of such language. Clear enough for you?
>
> If by blunt you mean I call a spade a spade, I won't argue. If by tactless
> you mean I don't beat around the bush, let's just say I have the courage of
> my convictions.
Sorry, Stan, but I don't think your posts like "Thanks for being my
n--ger" and "Doesn't she have lips like a baboon's anus?" have anything
to do with courage, or any other virtue.
Catalan
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1125352598.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> If by blunt you mean I call a spade a spade, I won't argue. If by
>> tactless
>> you mean I don't beat around the bush, let's just say I have the courage
>> of
>> my convictions.
>
> Sorry, Stan, but I don't think your posts like "Thanks for being my
> n--ger" and "Doesn't she have lips like a baboon's anus?" have anything
> to do with courage, or any other virtue.
I file them under blunt.
Nick
The context was snipped by Steven B Dowd (evidently, 'James Rynd').
> Nick wrote:
> > After much considered discussion, we have been able to reach
> > substantial agreement about Taylor Kingston's character, at
> > least as it has been expressed as a writer in rec.games.chess.*.
> > Our general view of Taylor Kingston's character is quite unfavourable.
>
> Does anyone else think this roundtable discussion
> included Nick, Nick, Nick, and of course, Nick?
Would Steven B Dowd like to bet a very large sum of money in support
of his evident contention that I *never* have previously discussed
Taylor Kingston's posts at length with another writer in
rec.games.chess.*?
As I recall, Simon ('chapman billy') previously has observed in public,
at least by implication, that Taylor Kingston evidently writes on the
basis of expediency rather than according to moral principle.
For months, Simon and I have discussed many of Taylor Kingston's posts
in detail. Long ago, Simon and I began by holding, independently,
generally favourable views of Taylor Kingston, based on what he
had written at the ChessCafe website. After reading and discussing
many of Taylor Kingston's posts in rec.games.chess.*, Simon and I
have reached much less favourable views of Taylor Kingston.
Simon's E-mail address is available, and I suppose that he
would respond to a specific request for confirmation that
he and I have corresponded at length about Taylor Kingston.
So how much would Steven B Dowd ('James Rynd') like to bet?
--Nick
Mike Murray
wrote:
>jame...@aol.com wrote:
>> Does anyone else think this roundtable discussion
>> included Nick, Nick, Nick, and of course, Nick?
>Would Steven B Dowd like to bet a very large sum of money in support
>of his evident contention that I *never* have previously discussed
>Taylor Kingston's posts at length with another writer in
>rec.games.chess.*?
>Simon's E-mail address is available, and I suppose that he
>would respond to a specific request for confirmation that
>he and I have corresponded at length about Taylor Kingston.
>So how much would Steven B Dowd ('James Rynd') like to bet?
Nick's a bettin' man, all right. A sport.
For example, when various "inveterate trolls"
mocked his claim to be of USCF Master strength, based on a
"performance rating" gleaned from evidently off-hand games against an
unnamed "Expert", he offered to bet me a substantial sum that he was
USCF Class A strength. The proffered wager referenced nothing about
his earlier claim of chess mastery.
And when Nick prattled that "The German Democratic Republic (East
Germany) did have a set of laws and policies that evidently gave women
more rights and protection than in the Federal Republic of Germany
(West Germany)", I responded that, despite their elegant
constitution, "only an idiot would praise East Germany's actual
policies of rights and protections", Nick offered to bet a large sum
of money that his IQ was not less than 100.
Call him a jackass and he'll probably want to wager on the results of
a genetic test.
Yup, a sport, a real sport.
Nick
Again, the context was snipped by Taylor Kingston.
> Nick wrote:
> > How often have white men (Taylor Kingston's a white American)
> > condescendingly told 'men of colour' that we should not act
> > as though we bear 'a chip on the shoulder' about racism
> > and the countless lies told to deny or to excuse racism?
>
> Nick, the chip I referred to has nothing to do with racism.
> You're against racism?
I suspect that my family and I have experienced more racism
recently than Taylor Kingston and his family have experienced.
> Good, so am I, and so is every decent person.
Almost everyone denies being a racist or supporting racism.
*If* all of these denials were true, then racism should have
become extinct by now. Clearly, many of those denials must
be false.
I never have met a white American who admitted to being a racist.
I have met a white American who was an official member of the
Klu Klux Klan and who expressed his admiration of Adolf Hitler.
I have met more than one white American who said that non-white
people are 'subhuman' and should not be permited to live at all
in the United States. They all emphatically denied being racists.
>From what I have heard, Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston have
had a dispute about apartheid in South Africa. I have no doubt
that Jerome Bibuld *always sincerely* opposed apartheid, even
when it was unfashionable in the United States, which long had
lent support--in all but name--to pro-apartheid South Africa.
> By "a chip on your shoulder" I referred to your usenet
> tendency to see antagonism where it does not exist, to
> interpret disagreement as hostility,
That's a false statement by Taylor Kingston.
Here's what Matt Nemmers has written:
"Take Nick Bourbaki for example. He and I probably
only agree on one or two issues out of the plethora
of topics that've been discussed here over the years,
yet I've always been able to communicate in a very
civil manner with him because neither has ever
resorted to 'name-calling'."
--Matt Nemmers (rec.games.chess.politics)
I disagree strongly with Matt Nemmers on many issues,
but I have no personal quarrel with him at this time.
As far as I can recall, Matt Nemmers has not deliberately
misrepresented what I have written, though sometimes
he has misunderstood it.
> to blow minor differences out of all proportion.
Taylor Kingston regards his many dishonest distortions
of what I have written as a 'minor difference', but
I have to take his dishonesty more seriously.
> This will neither combat racism nor aid your digestion,
> hence my recommendation that you try to relax.
Perhaps Taylor Kingston could attempt to learn how to
appear less condescending.
> > Again, Taylor Kingston does not show any interest in
> > criticising the racist comments made by writers other
> > than Sam Sloan.
>
> Nick, get real. Neither you nor I have enough lifetimes
> to combat every idiotic bigot on the Internet.
Taylor Kingston has misrepresented what I meant.
In some earlier threads, I put some specific questions
to Taylor Kingston about some specific racist comments
by some writer(s) here other than Sam Sloan. Taylor
Kingston always had ignored those specific questions.
> By your logic, I might as well conclude that you are
> a racist because of your failure to protest Japan's
> persecution of its Ainu minority, or any number of
> other racist acts.
How *could* Taylor Kingston know exactly what I have
or have not done to object to racism in real life?
> By "writers other than Sam Sloan" I presume you mean,
> primarily, Stan Booz?
American racism does not begin and end with the abuses
by just one or two individual Americans.
> Two comments: (1) I am advised by someone whom I trust,
> and who knows Booz personally, that Stan is not racist.
White Americans usually like to congratulate one another
about their self-perceived lack of racism. By the way,
I have been told by an apparently 'nice' white American,
who had grown up around several members of the Klu Klux
Klan, that *most* KKK members are *not really* racist.
> (2) He is, however, blunt and tactless, which leads to
> remarks that are sometimes highly offensive. His
> "Thanks for being my n**ger" is clearly one of those.
Stan Booz has made other racist comments, and I expect
that Taylor Kingston would have no interest in reading
them, though some other readers here may remember them.
> I strongly disapprove of such language.
> Clear enough for you?
I *previously* had asked Taylor Kingston to comment on
Stan Booz's 'Nigger Nick' slur against me, and Taylor
Kingston then declined to respond to that, though he
did 'respond' to some other part(s) of my post(s).
> > I never would consider regarding someone as condescending,
> > dishonest, and hypocritical as Taylor Kingston as my friend.
>
> Nick, my concern for your opinion of me weighs in somewhere
> between a fly's feeler and a rat's rump.
I could not care less what Taylor Kingston may think of me.
My family and I regard Taylor Kingston with deep disdain.
> Now, I again advise you to relax.
Must Taylor Kingston always be so condescending?
> Or, you can continue tilting at windmills of your own
> imagining -- but all you will get are tilted imaginary
> windmills.
Taylor Kingston prefers to pretend that I alone am capable
of noticing and remembering the evidence of his dishonesty.
Simon ('chapman billy') also has read the evidence of
Taylor Kingston's snipping out-of-context, dishonest
distortions, and other misrepresentations of me, and
he has discussed that at length with me.
--Nick
Nick
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1125348743.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > By "writers other than Sam Sloan" I presume you mean, primarily, Stan
> > Booz? Two comments: (1) I am advised by someone whom I trust, and who
> > knows Booz personally, that Stan is not racist. (2) He is, however,
> > blunt and tactless, which leads to remarks that are sometimes highly
> > offensive. His "Thanks for being my n**ger" is clearly one of those.
> > I strongly disapprove of such language. Clear enough for you?
>
> If by blunt you mean I call a spade a spade, I won't argue.
> If by tactless you mean I don't beat around the bush, let's
> just say I have the courage of my convictions.
Several readers of my acquaintance have noticed that Stan Booz
is a particularly vulgar racist. But his kind of racism seems
acceptable enough--if not even admired--to many other white
Americans, some of whom may write again here in his support.
More than a few diverse persons (Africans, Asians, Europeans,
Latin Americans) of my acquaintance have observed, on the
basis of their experiences of having lived there, that the
United States continues to be a deeply racist society and
deeply in denial about its racism.
> To humor the Parrs, Sloans, and Nicks of the world
Any experienced reader of rec.games.chess.* should know that
I never have been any supporter of Larry Parr or Sam Sloan.
> is a waste of my precious time. People like Nick
To Stan Booz, who *exactly* are the 'people like Nick'?
> aren't qualified enough to even shine my shoes.
Recently in rec.games.chess.politics, Stan Booz wrote
(to Larry Parr): "...an era when Stalin executed all
the black people living in Russia."
--Stan Booz (aka 'Catalan')
I pointed out--more than once--that it's a false statement
by Stan Booz. I cited three memoirs of Soviet life by
writers of black African ancestry as evidence. But Stan
Booz continued to reiterate his statement, though sometimes
revising it ('all' became 'most'), in his continuing dispute
with Larry Parr.
Here's what Yelena Khanga, a Soviet/Russian journalist
of black African ancestry wrote about her experiences
(though she was born after Stalin's death):
"...I am also Russian to the core. Russian was my first
language, though my mother and grandmother often spoke
English at home....My mind and soul have been shaped by
the compassionate irony of Chekhov, the poetry of Pushkin,
the romantic music of Tchaikovsky. ... As a black girl
growing up in Moscow, it mattered to me that Russians
considered Pushkin a purely Russian poet. In America,
I suspect *his ancestry would have led whites to consider
him a marginal black rather than a purely 'American' writer.
In Russian culture, I never felt like a stranger in my black
skin. *Unlike many African-Americans, I was never made to
feel less intelligent, less capable, less likely to achieve
than my white schoolmates.*
...
Anti-black prejudices are not institutionalized in Russia;
racism feeds on visible targets, and there are too few of
us to attract the kind of bigotry directed toward larger
minorities.
...
When I was growing up, I thought of my color not as a target
for discrimination but simply--and not so simply--as a mark
of separateness. No racist taunts were aimed at me, but I
did attract persistent, usually polite curiosity."
--Yelena Khanga ('Soul to Soul: The Story of a Black Russian
American Family 1865-1992', pp. 21-2)
In short, Yelena Khanga evidently believes that she experienced
less racism growing up in the USSR than she would have if she
had grown up in the USA at the same time.
--Nick
Nick
> <jame...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Does anyone else think this roundtable discussion
> > included Nick, Nick, Nick, and of course, Nick?
>
> How about Larry Parr?
For the record, I never have corresponded with Larry Parr.
--Nick
Nick
I have to say that sometimes I feel like I have been wasting
my time in responding at all to the writers (several in this
thread) who like to keep writing their usual dishonest
distortions and/or lies in order to attack me personally.
> People like Nick aren't qualified enough to even shine my shoes.
"Thanks for being my Nigger Nick."
--Stan Booz (writing to me)
Who *exactly* does Stan Booz regard as the 'people like Nick'?
--Nick
Nick
> Tapio Huuhka wrote:
> > Nick wrote:
> > > Strictly speaking, the countries of Scandinavia
> > > are Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Finland is a
> > > Nordic country but not a Scandinavian one.
My statement (above) referred to Scandinavia
rather than to the Scandinavian peninsula.
> > Strictly speaking, Scandinavia is a peninsula
> > consisting of Norway and Sweden.
>
> Strictly speaking, that is the definition of the
> Scandinavian peninsula, Scandinavia is Norway,
> Sweden and Denmark, strictly speaking.
Thanks for corroborating my earlier impression that some
people may take the proper usage of 'Scandinavia' more
seriously than some ignorant Americans may take it.
--Nick
Mike Murray
wrote:
Nick says:
>Here's what Matt Nemmers has written:
>"Take Nick Bourbaki for example. He and I probably
>only agree on one or two issues out of the plethora
>of topics that've been discussed here over the years,
>yet I've always been able to communicate in a very
>civil manner with him because neither has ever
>resorted to 'name-calling'."
> --Matt Nemmers (rec.games.chess.politics)
and then, a bit later, adds:
>> > I never would consider regarding someone as condescending,
>> > dishonest, and hypocritical as Taylor Kingston as my friend.
Mike says:
Looks like Nemmers' lesson didn't really take.
...
Taylor Kingston says:
>> Now, I again advise you to relax.
Nick responds:
>Must Taylor Kingston always be so condescending?
And, the hapless reader, mind numb from the sheer volume of
condescension in the corpus of Nick's prolific Usenet "writings", can
only echo what the Boozer has said on other occasions: "The mind
boggles".
parrt...@cs.com
Although2300+ ELO Grand Coulee NM Taylor Kingston
uses a bit of Boozian imagery to express his unconcern
about Nick Bourbaki's opinion (fly's feeler - rat's
rump) he nonetheless sues for peace once again.
Will Mr. Bourbaki finally permit NM Kingston to
surrender?
There is one unfinished bit of business. NM
Kingston's analogy to explain why he only attacks Sam
Sloan while keeping quiet about our forum's foremost
simian won't do. Mr. Bourbaki needs to call him on
it. Protesting comments by a participant in rgcp
certainly does not require similar protests about
Japanese treatment of some obscure minority. We are a
relatively small group at rgcp; we have all become
acquainted; we all appreciate our manifold virtues, if
such they be. We can comment about the doings of
others here without having to comment on the doings of
Tahitians.
So, if Mr. Bourbaki can stimulate NM Kingston
to concede the sly analogy, then I think he can
gracefully accept his foe's prone genuflection.
As for the straining to detect racism here or
there, it is an exercise which goes far beyond
anything ever imagined by a grand inquisitor.
Finally, we note the attempt by NM Kingston to
excuse Mr. Booz, calling him "blunt and tactless"
rather than dishonest and crude. Our national ego
master is careful not to stir the Booz swill.
Stan Booz changes his handle and then shuts up
when his political bosses tell him to do so. The last thing
in the world he evinces is courage, usually claiming to have
made yet another of his "jokes" after being caught out in
another in his serial lies.
The man has revealed himself here as a bully
and a coward, a breast-beater and a crawler. One
recollects how he literally begged to be kept on the
finance committee.
Mike Murray
wrote:
> So, if Mr. Bourbaki can stimulate NM Kingston
>to concede the sly analogy, then I think he can
>gracefully accept his foe's prone genuflection.
For some reason, the tenor of this whole thread brings back memories
of Montana college days when a friend of a friend was formally
excommunicated for urinating in a holy water font. His mother pled
with the bishop to give her son another chance and, since the lady was
a well-known church stalwart, an audience was granted.
The lad knelt before the bishop and expressed contrition for the
sacrilege. The bishop welcomed him back and offered his ring for the
penitent to kiss.
Unfortunately, the wise-ass resurfaced and he told the prelate, "I'm
not going to kiss that finger until you tell me where it's been".
Those were the days before the newspapers and John Law had similar
questions, and the excommunication stood.
Well, friend of a friend tales are notoriously unreliable, and this
may be the stuff of urban legend, but...
politi...@gmail.com
explain why he only attacks Sam Sloan while keeping quiet about our
forum's foremost simian won't do. >>
Speaking of unfinished bits of business...tell us about NM Sam
Sloan....
Taylor Kingston
Nick wrote:
> >From what I have heard, Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston have
> had a dispute about apartheid in South Africa.
You are misinformed, Nick. I've never had any dispute with Bibuld,
nor with anyone over apartheid.
As for the rest of Nick's post, his facile America-bashing requires
no response. My apologies to the group for wasting time with this
troll.
Catalan
"Nick" <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125361884.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> is a waste of my precious time. People like Nick
>
> To Stan Booz, who *exactly* are the 'people like Nick'?
Sam Sloan, Larry Parr, Jerome Bibuld, and Moore.
Catalan
"Nick" <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125362967.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> To humor the Parrs, Sloans, and Nicks of the world is
>> a waste of my precious time.
>
> Who *exactly* does Stan Booz regard as the 'people like Nick'?
>> To humor the Parrs, Sloans, and Nicks of the world is
Catalan
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1125373848.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Stan Booz changes his handle and then shuts up
> when his political bosses tell him to do so.
Another bald-faced lie Larry?
> The man has revealed himself here as a bully
> and a coward, a breast-beater and a crawler. One
> recollects how he literally begged to be kept on the
> finance committee.
Yea, I really didn't want Brer Don to throw me in that there briar patch.
Funny thing is, Larry's source had to resign in disgrace from the
prestigious Board Secretary position.
Catalan
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1125404201.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> As for the rest of Nick's post, his facile America-bashing requires
> no response. My apologies to the group for wasting time with this
> troll.
Nick hates anyone of the American race.
michael adams
(,,)
> Who *exactly* does Stan Booz regard as the 'people like Nick'?
Squirmy maggots..
Nick
> Nick wrote:
Again, the context was completely snipped by Taylor Kingston.
> > From what I have heard, Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston
> > have had a dispute about apartheid in South Africa.
>
> You are misinformed, Nick.
Someone who has been reading and writing in rec.games.chess.*
for much longer than I have mentioned having read something
about a dispute between Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston,
which supposedly was about what the USCF should have done or
not done with regard to chess in pro-apartheid South Africa.
One could argue that this supposed dispute was, strictly
speaking, not about apartheid in South Africa but about
USCF policy toward chess in pro-apartheid South Africa.
I regret that that I did express that more clearly in
my earlier statement, but my time to write was short.
> I've never had any dispute with Bibuld, nor
> with anyone over apartheid.
Jerome Bibuld has not been in communication with me for
a long time. If our communication should resume, then
I hope that I can remember to ask him about this subject.
If Jerome Bibuld confirms that he never has had any dispute
with Taylor Kingston in any relation to pro-apartheid South
Africa, then I shall accept Taylor Kingston's statement.
> As for the rest of Nick's post, his facile
> America-bashing requires no response.
As far I can recall, Juergen R seems to have been
right, by apparent implication, in predicting what
Taylor Kingston might do. Like some other American
writers, Taylor Kingston resorts to US 'flag-waving'
in his attempt to divert attention from the evidence
of his own dishonesty and other wrongdoing.
Here's what Mark Mathabane, a black South African writer
once said to a white South African friend (a German) of his:
"You're not offended by the truth because you have an open
mind. But many whites are not like you. They don't want
to hear the truth, especially how a black man tells it.
You see, I feel so emotional about what the police and the
government are doing to my people that *I can't lie for the
sake of easing the consciences of white people*. The only
way I can tell it, is like it is."
--Mark Mathabane (Kaffir Boy, p. 273)
There *is* evidence that the United States secretly
provided support to the pro-apartheid regime in
South Africa. Perhaps Taylor Kingston prefers to
dismiss that evidence as 'facile America-bashing'.
As far as I can tell, Taylor Kingston, a white American,
prefers not to face the evidence of continuing racism,
both broad and deep, in the United States. There are
many academic books on this subject that Taylor Kingston
may prefer not to read.
Some scientific surveys have shown that there are large
differences between whites and non-whites in their
perceptions and experiences of racism in the United States.
White Americans tend to have quite favourable
self-perceptions of their own lack of racism,
but non-whites tend to have much more unfavourable
perceptions of the continuing racism of white Americans.
By the way, within the past year I have met a white
American woman from Iowa. (Our conversation began
on the subject of architecture, not US race relations.)
She described the United States as an extremely racist
society and she seemed deeply angry about it. She
told me that her son, who's partly of African and Asian
ancestry, has been the target of fierce racism by many
white Americans. She also said that she feels unable
to speak honestly in public about racism in the United
States because then she would expect to be ostracized
by most other white Americans. She feels that some
white Americans already look down on her because her
son's not white. She believes, as I do, that not
many white Americans are ready to face honestly the
evidence of their own culturally embedded racism.
As for my alleged 'facile America-bashing':
1) I believe that the United States remains a deeply
racist society. I expect that not many white Americans
would agree, but most non-whites in the United States
would agree with me about that. (I have heard some
complaints that "the United States is the most racist
society in the world", which I regard as exaggerated.)
2) I believe that the United States should not be
allowed to dominate completely the rest of the world.
Many, though far from all, Americans seem to believe
otherwise. There's nothing much for me to say to them.
Unfortunately, that question may be ultimately settled
through means other than just words.
I have spent enough time in the United States to
experience American racism. I have many relatives and
friends, who also have experienced American racism, in
the United States. Taylor Kingston, a white American,
may prefer to believe that we all must be lying
about our experiences. Several men in my family
have served honourably in the US Armed Forces in
wartime. They all despised American racism and
the many American hypocrites who like to excuse it.
I regard Taylor Kingston's professed opposition
to racism as nothing more than a hypocritical sham.
But a hypocritical sham may be enough to impress
many other white Americans. So be it. My family
and I are not stupid enough to believe that most
white Americans would share our vital interests
in opposing racism. We have known some white
Americans who *sincerely* opposed racism out
of moral principle. Based on everything that
he has written and *not* written, I believe
that Taylor Kingston's not any morally consistent
principled opponent of racism.
> My apologies to the group for wasting time
> with this troll.
Can Taylor Kingston's name-calling succeed in
covering up the evidence of his dishonesty?
--Nick
Chess One
"Catalan" <x...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pN-dnUks1r5...@giganews.com...
Is that at all like a tide-race?
And though Nick is reasonably prolix and indeed captious of those with whom
he cannot find agreement; is there some sense of his regretting American
cultural behavior and also Americans as individual persons? There has been a
great deal of resentment in Europe to American cultural behavior these past
2 years, though no noticeable resentment of Americans as individuals.
Perhaps to those who stay at home the difference isn't clear, for wont of
intelligence in either sense.
Phil Innes
jame...@aol.com
Not only is he misinformed, but also "beyond disdain." We had a
roundtable discussion and decided that it is consistent to believe that
Nick is a man of many small qualities and has to engage in intellectual
puffery. Not because it proves anything mind you, but it makes him feel
oh-so-much better about his lack of abilities.
Nick plays many cards. My favorite was when someone quoted an entire
post of his and he accused them of his second-most used card -
"snipping out of context." I also liked how he constantly tells people
which books they must read in order to become well-informed, but when I
*suggested* he perhaps needed to read more on a subject, he became
incredibly inflamed and then started spouting off about my supposed
support of the IRA.
He is clueless, but feels the need to spout off. That makes him the
perfect troll to play with.
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125503392.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >You are misinformed, Nick.
>
> Not only is he misinformed, but also "beyond disdain."
But come now, Gentlemen! How prissy!
How come you to write "beyond disdain" about the character of writing when
the word 'beyond' is itself redundant? It is unthinking tropery - and
furthermore conflates the person with the message they speak - which is
logical tropery occasioned by hanging out with mumping villeins.
> We had a
> roundtable discussion and decided that it is consistent to believe that
> Nick is a man of many small qualities and has to engage in intellectual
> puffery. Not because it proves anything mind you, but it makes him feel
> oh-so-much better about his lack of abilities.
Too much protesting! And too pround an investment in 'intellectual' which I
might assure you means to take some observation and make it formal and a
matter of mental discrimination. There are even those who would regret being
named 'intellectual' for this same reason - I believe Lawrence (DH)
mentioned it.
> Nick plays many cards. My favorite was when someone quoted an entire
> post of his and he accused them of his second-most used card -
> "snipping out of context." I also liked how he constantly tells people
> which books they must read in order to become well-informed, but when I
> *suggested* he perhaps needed to read more on a subject, he became
> incredibly inflamed and then started spouting off about my supposed
> support of the IRA.
Taking material from its proper context is a usual form of abuse here on
usenet. Were that this writer noticed the more egregious examples of it! You
must not take refuge in a too acuitous accusation of the goings on of the
boyos to exculpate yourself from your own sin.
What are we - a bunch of old fishwives who can't state our truth without all
these recourses? If Nick can't do it it well - can we do it better? That is,
can we demonstrate it?
> He is clueless, but feels the need to spout off. That makes him the
> perfect troll to play with.
But this sinks to some level of unregenerate response - an intended funny
one to formed gallery - but which nevertheless literally de-humanises the
other writer into a pseudo-being, 'a troll', someone less than a human
being. And that my friend is a form of writerly fascism.
I can understand the emotional need to express it - but you do not
understand your own emotion, and seek to celebrate it by way of appeal to
the gallery you attract to such things - which cannot be recommended.
Phil Innes
jame...@aol.com
>one
No the whole response was intentionally funny.... and I only used
"beyond disdain" as that is the phrase Nicky used on me multiple
times...
What you fail to recognize, Phil, is that there are some people
incapable of any response that doesn't include ego puffery... it
doesn't bother me though, I find them rather amusing as they tralala
about their posts. Reading Nick and Goran is like reading Laurel and
Hardy discussing chess and politics, it is funny, but at some point
someone is going to get hurt.
And yes, many of us are nothing but degenerate fishwives... this is
usenet, not a literary journal.
Nick
> Nick hates anyone of the American race.
What 'American race'?
Does Stan Booz believe that I would have fought for
US General Custer against the native Americans (Lakota)
at the Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876? :-)
Today, US citizens can be of African, Asian, European,
Latin American, and, yes, 'native American' ancestry.
In the past, however, US laws have denied US citizenship
to 'American Indians' and have denied naturalization for
US citizenship to Asian immigrants.
In the rec.games.chess.politics thread 'Handwritten Ballots'
Stan Booz wrote:
"Muslims are a Semitic people."
--Stan Booz (21 August 2005)
Stan Booz's ignorance seems boundless.
For the record, my many friends and relatives who are
US citizens do *not* believe that I hate all Americans.
--Nick
Catalan
"Nick" <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125526520.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Stan Booz ('Catalan') wrote:
>> Nick hates anyone of the American race.
>
> What 'American race'?
>
> Does Stan Booz believe that I would have fought for
> US General Custer against the native Americans (Lakota)
> at the Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876? :-)
An odd choice of available analogies.
> Today, US citizens can be of African, Asian, European,
> Latin American, and, yes, 'native American' ancestry.
> In the past, however, US laws have denied US citizenship
> to 'American Indians' and have denied naturalization for
> US citizenship to Asian immigrants.
Everything is in the past and one can support any point they want from such
ancient actions.
> In the rec.games.chess.politics thread 'Handwritten Ballots'
> Stan Booz wrote:
> "Muslims are a Semitic people."
> --Stan Booz (21 August 2005)
>
> Stan Booz's ignorance seems boundless.
>
> For the record, my many friends and relatives who are
> US citizens do *not* believe that I hate all Americans.
But I wager both think you hate most Americans if not all.
Nick
(I snipped the previously addressed part about a possible
past dispute between Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston.)
> As for the rest of Nick's post, his facile America-bashing
> requires no response. My apologies to the group for
> wasting time with this troll.
I am writing in rec.games.chess.misc.
Larry Parr created this undeclared off-topic thread in
rec.games.chess.misc to discuss the film "Guess Who's
Coming to Dinner" in particular and its subject of
American racism in general.
Apart from my factual correction of Larry Parr for
referring mistakenly to the Finns as Scandinavians,
I have tended to write in this thread about the subject
of American racism. So I cannot be fairly accused
of writing off-topic in Larry Parr's off-topic thread.
My general position (which Taylor Kingston seems to
regard as 'facile America-bashing' or 'trolling') is
that the United States remains a deeply racist society
and deeply in denial about its racism. As far as I
can tell, Taylor Kingston seems to dispute that.
James Loewen is an American academic (in Vermont)
who has written a book, "Lies My Teacher Told Me:
Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong",
about the 'patriotically correct' *falsification of
history* ((including racism) in US history textbooks.
"*When textbooks make racism invisible in American
history, they obstruct our already poor ability to
see it in the present.* The closest they come to
analysis is to present a vague feeling in optimism:
in race relations, as in everything, our society
(the United States) is constantly getting better....
The notion of progress suffuses textbook treatments
of black-white relations, implying that race relations
improved on their own. *This cheery optimism only
compounds the problem, because whites can infer that
racism is over.*"
--James Loewen (Lies My Teacher Told Me, p. 163)
Evidently, James Loewen asserts that US history
textbooks have routinely 'whitewashed' their
coverage of racism in order to make white Americans
feel better, or at least more comfortable, about it.
James Loewen does *not* assert that the subject of
racism has been *completely ignored* in US history
textbooks, but he does assert that US history
textbooks tend to ignore or to deny much of the
evidence of racism in United States history.
Perhaps Taylor Kingston prefers to believe the lies
and in the 'cheery optimism', regardless of the
evidence, about racism in the United States.
--Nick
michael adams
Nation maite, Nation..
politi...@gmail.com
politi...@gmail.com
I intended to reference the 10:16 p.m. entry "Captions are Fun"
michael adams
Nick, it's not just the USA. From my 'Weekly Telegraph' (front page)
"Black Bishop attacks church racism" - THE CHURCH of England is infected
with institutional racism and is still a place of 'pain' for many black
Anglicans according to its first black archbishop Dr. John Sentamu etc.
Seems to be everywhere this 'racism' - must remember to check under my
bed.
How do you regard the Mugabe Gov. current 'rubbish-removal' policy, also
the fat black people on my TV screen busily looting away in the American
south (deep) - tia..
Nick
Evidently, some American writers in rec.games.chess.*
like to claim that there must be little or no racism
in the United States.
Here's what Tobi Usher wrote in response:
"It's ludicrous to call the Dutch more racist than
the Americans. I have lived both in the US and in
the Netherlands and there is no comparison."
--Tobi Usher (30 April 2003, rec.games.chess.misc)
Based on his experiences of life in both the United
States and the Netherlands, Tobi Usher evidently has
concluded that the Americans are far more racist than
the Dutch.
So would Taylor Kingston like to denounce Tobi Usher
for his alleged 'facile America-bashing' or for his
alleged 'trolling'?
So would Stan Booz feel that Tobi Usher should be
locked up in a cell next to mine at Guantanamo? :-)
There *is* substantial racism in Europe, however,
and I am irritated by those Europeans who seek to
deny it or to excuse it by saying that racism may
be even worse in the United States.
"You talk about the race problem, the immigration
problem, all sorts of problems. *If you are liberal,
you say that Black people have problems. If you are
not, you say they are the problem.* But the members
of the new Europe have only one real problem; that
problem is white people. *Racism, of course, is
not our problem; it is yours. We simply suffer
the effects of your racism.*"
--Salman Rushdie (quoted in 'Teaching About Prejudice'
London Minority Right Groups Report,
No. 59, p. 52)
I suspect that what Taylor Kingston objects most to
is *not* my general position on United States racism.
In several earlier threads, I have cited evidence of
Taylor Kingston's flagrant snipping out-of-context,
dishonest distortions, and deliberate misrepresentations
of what I have written. I also have cited evidence
of Stan Booz's racist comments, sometimes including
links of his complete posts and mine in response.
Taylor Kingston usually has preferred to snip all of
that evidence and act as though it does not exist.
Taylor Kingston also has been acting as though that
evidence could exist only in my imagination, even
though I have informed him that I have seriously
discussed Taylor Kingston's posts with other readers
in rec.games.chess.*.
I see no point in wasting my time in this thread to
reiterate all that evidence about Taylor Kingston's
dishonesty because he would just snip it all again.
So I suspect that what Taylor Kingston objects most
to about me is my citing of evidence to expose his
dishonesty and hypocrisy. Please note that Taylor
Kingston usually prefers to avoid engaging me in
any specific point of fact that I have mentioned
about his misbehaviour. Taylor Kingston prefers
to practise name-calling and US flag-waving in
his attempt to divert attention from the evidence.
I have been rather amused that both Taylor Kingston
and Larry Parr seem to act as though it must be true
that *either* Taylor Kingston is dishonest *or*
Larry Parr is dishonest. I have been rather amused
that both Taylor Kingston and Larry Parr seem to
act as though it must be true that *either* Sam
Sloan is a racist *or* Stan Booz is a racist.
I would submit that neither of these either/or
propositions must be true.
Sam Sloan has made racist comments and been denounced
for them by Taylor Kingston. When I have cited the
evidence of Stan Booz's racist comments (most of
which Taylor Kingston seems to ignore), Taylor
Kingston prefers to describe Stan Booz's comments
(e.g. 'Thanks for being my Nigger Nick', a slur
that Taylor Kingston prefers to 'quote' in an
abridged form.) as just 'blunt and tactless'
rather than as 'racist'.
*If* Sam Sloan had written what Stan Booz wrote,
then does anyone here doubt that Taylor Kingston
would have denounced Sam Sloan as a 'racist'?
Taylor Kingston seems to welcome the friendship
of a particularly vulgar racist such as Stan Booz.
Many white Americans may think that there's nothing
wrong with that, but that just reveals more about them.
I believe that both Stan Booz and Sam Sloan are racists.
I believe that both Taylor Kingston and Larry Parr are
liars. Taylor Kingston and Larry Parr may like to
argue with each other about who has lied more often,
but any differences in their levels of dishonesty
are not enough to make me respect either of them.
--Nick
Louis Blair
> Someone who has been reading and writing in rec.games.chess.*
> for much longer than I have mentioned having read something
> about a dispute between Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston,
> which supposedly was about what the USCF should have done or
> not done with regard to chess in pro-apartheid South Africa.
>
> One could argue that this supposed dispute was, strictly
> speaking, not about apartheid in South Africa but about
> USCF policy toward chess in pro-apartheid South Africa.
> I regret that that I did express that more clearly in
> my earlier statement, but my time to write was short.
>
>
> Jerome Bibuld has not been in communication with me for
> a long time. If our communication should resume, then
> I hope that I can remember to ask him about this subject.
> If Jerome Bibuld confirms that he never has had any dispute
> with Taylor Kingston in any relation to pro-apartheid South
> Africa, then I shall accept Taylor Kingston's statement.
_
A google search fails to find any pre-Aug. 30, 2005 Taylor
Kingston rec.games.chess.politics notes that contain
"apartheid", "Bibuld", or "Africa".
Louis Blair
Jerome Bibuld that mention "Kingston" produced only
one note:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Date: 19 Nov 2004 14:50:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Marines, Navy... etc.
Dear Mr. Innes,
...
(Incidentally, I enjoyed your "interview" of Taylor Kingston and look
forward
to those of GM Maurice Ashley and L. Parr.)
...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Based on his experiences of life in both the United
>States and the Netherlands, Tobi Usher evidently has
>concluded that the Americans are far more racist than
>the Dutch.
>So would Taylor Kingston like to denounce Tobi Usher
>for his alleged 'facile America-bashing' or for his
>alleged 'trolling'?
Perhaps only after Tobi Usher reiterated the same position as often as
has Nick.
Say it once, you're expressing a position. Say it fifteen time,
you're a troll. Say it one-hundred-fifteen times, you're a uber
troll. (No I didn't actually count. No, I don't want to wager my
life savings that Nick has trolled on racism precisely
one-hundred-fifteen times).
>"You talk about the race problem, the immigration
>problem, all sorts of problems. *If you are liberal,
>you say that Black people have problems. If you are
>not, you say they are the problem.* But the members
>of the new Europe have only one real problem; that
>problem is white people. *Racism, of course, is
>not our problem; it is yours. We simply suffer
>the effects of your racism.*"
> --Salman Rushdie (quoted in 'Teaching About Prejudice'
> London Minority Right Groups Report,
> No. 59, p. 52)
Only one real problem? Seems as if Rushdie has at least one
additional real problem, and it ain't white Europeans (who, after all,
have spent rather large sums of money sheltering and protecting him).
>I believe that both Stan Booz and Sam Sloan are racists.
>I believe that both Taylor Kingston and Larry Parr are
>liars.
What's worse, they resort to name calling.
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Reading Nick and Goran is like reading Laurel and
>Hardy discussing chess and politics, it is funny, but at some point
>someone is going to get hurt.
Are you talking about the fly-paper and chest-hair routine ?
The Historian
jame...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> What you fail to recognize, Phil, is that there are some people
> incapable of any response that doesn't include ego puffery.
Self-awareness has never been Innes's strong suit.
parrt...@cs.com
Nick Bourbaki is certainly not a troll. He
knows more than several of the participants here put
together. That much is obvious enough. His viewpoint
is consistent, and I believe we know his monicker to
be genuine.
Mr. Bourbaki's favorite theme is racism,
often in chess, but in other things, too. I consider
the subject to be relatively unimportant when placed
beside class, status and moolah.
My main observation, which is not a complaint,
is that the guy does not know when to take prisoners.
As Alfred P. Doolittle might say, NM Kingston was
willin' to surrender, waitin' to surrender, wantin' to
surrender and would gladly have surrendered if Mr.
Bourbaki had just taken his finger off the friggin'
tommygun.
Catalan
"michael adams" <no...@tinsheds.com.au> wrote in message
news:431641...@tinsheds.com.au...
Poetic license.
Catalan
"Nick" <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125536077.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> So would Stan Booz feel that Tobi Usher should be
> locked up in a cell next to mine at Guantanamo? :-)
Frankly, I din't give a danb what this Tobi has to say or why I should
assume that he is telling a real story.
> Sam Sloan has made racist comments and been denounced
> for them by Taylor Kingston. When I have cited the
> evidence of Stan Booz's racist comments (most of
> which Taylor Kingston seems to ignore), Taylor
> Kingston prefers to describe Stan Booz's comments
> (e.g. 'Thanks for being my Nigger Nick',
You know damn right well it was not racist in the context it was used. Then
again you thought you had something when you asked me what I meant by Nick
and his kind. Perhaps you're not being intellectually dishonest. Maybe
you're just stupid.
parrt...@cs.com
Contra Nick Bourbaki's claim, I did not write
that Finns are Scandinavians.
On the subject of racism and lying, I am genuinely
surprised that Mr. Bourbaki only ranks me as a liar --
an enormous one, to be sure -- and not also as a
racist along his claimed Boozian-Sloanian lines.
Contra Mr. Bourbaki's claim, I don't believe
that 2300+ ELO killer-diller NM Kingston and I
have been arguing about who is the bigger liar. We
have been arguing about whose personal character is
the greater depository of Stan Booz's favorite
substance. (Will Mr. Bourbaki now issue one of his
rare corrections?)
On the subject of fat blacks looting New
Orleans, dare I note that skinny Caucasoids have
looted repeatedly and successfully throughout history?
An interesting subject is why our soldiers
routinely shoot innocent civilians at checkpoints in
Iraq (or off rooftops) but keep their fingers off
triggers where either Iraqi or American looters are
concerned. You can loot with impunity in Baghdad or
New Orleans, but you had better not dare sleep on your
rooftop in Iraq when the weather gets too hot.
The solution fairly shouts itself. We take
some of the 25,000 or so semi-suicidal, semi-homicidal
mental cases among our madi-vacked soldiers from Iraq;
arm them once again with M-16s; and turn them loose in
the quagmire of New Orleans rather than sending some
of them back to the quagmire in Iraq.
Immediate benefit: the headless simian element
in America will then start screaming about supporting
"our boys" in New Orleans, and we can quickly
disengage from Iraq.
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125519965.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >But this sinks to some level of unregenerate response - an intended funny
>>one
>
> No the whole response was intentionally funny.... and I only used
> "beyond disdain" as that is the phrase Nicky used on me multiple
> times...
>
> What you fail to recognize, Phil,
What I infallibly recognise is a group of people making all subjects
personal to the neglect of any chess content whatever. Not only that, but
negatively personal, which, I must assume, people do for some reason known
best to themselves, their mummies and the village idiot.
> is that there are some people
> incapable of any response that doesn't include ego puffery... it
> doesn't bother me though, I find them rather amusing as they tralala
> about their posts. Reading Nick and Goran is like reading Laurel and
> Hardy discussing chess and politics, it is funny, but at some point
> someone is going to get hurt.
>
> And yes, many of us are nothing but degenerate fishwives... this is
> usenet, not a literary journal.
This are chess newsgroups, and while we all make mistakes in writing, what a
daft policy to decide the worth of content based only on other people's
perceived writing ability! This is a problem in logic, not in writing skill.
There are some people here whose only means of gaining attention is to
traduce others, and by your own actions you can join that club and its
prissy membership or have a go at writing something about chess.
Phil Innes
Nick
> Nick wrote:
> > Someone who has been reading and writing in rec.games.chess.*
> > for much longer than I have mentioned having read something
> > about a dispute between Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston,
> > which supposedly was about what the USCF should have done or
> > not done with regard to chess in pro-apartheid South Africa.
> >
> > One could argue that this supposed dispute was, strictly
> > speaking, not about apartheid in South Africa but about
> > USCF policy toward chess in pro-apartheid South Africa.
> > I regret that that I did express that more clearly in
> > my earlier statement, but my time to write was short.
> > ...
> > Jerome Bibuld has not been in communication with me for
> > a long time. If our communication should resume, then
> > I hope that I can remember to ask him about this subject.
> > If Jerome Bibuld confirms that he never has had any dispute
> > with Taylor Kingston in any relation to pro-apartheid South
> > Africa, then I shall accept Taylor Kingston's statement.
>
> Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.politics notes that
> contain "apartheid", "Bibuld", or "Africa".
Thanks to Louis Blair for his efforts with respect to
factual accuracy, a concern that I share very much.
Has a search been made in rec.games.chess.misc?
Has a search been made for Taylor Kingston under some
of his evident pseudonyms, such as 'R.P. Warren' and
'Niemand'? (Someone once forwarded me a 'R.P. Warren'
post that was signed off by Taylor Kingston.)
As I recall, Jerome Bibuld also has written under
more than one handle in rec.games.chess.*.
My source usually has been reliable enough, though no
one has a perfect memory. Perhaps Jerome Bibuld had a
dispute about USCF policy toward chess in pro-apartheid
South Africa with someone else, who later became
confused with Taylor Kingston in my source's memory.
I was *not* following USCF politics during the period
when apartheid still existed in South Africa and any
dispute about USCF policy toward chess in South Africa
would have been most relevant, so I cannot speak with
contemporary knowledge about Jerome Bibuld's disputes
in that period.
--Nick
Nick
Apart from the question of whether evidence exists only
in rec.games.chess.politics (which Louis Blair has attempted
to address) of a past dispute between Jerome Bibuld and
Taylor Kingston about USCF policy toward chess in
pro-apartheid South Africa, there is the question of
to what extent such a dispute may have existed anywhere
between Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston.
Jerome Bibuld was a passionate opponent of apartheid,
and, from what I have heard, his position on USCF policy
toward chess in pro-apartheid South Africa was well known.
Would Taylor Kingston say that he *always completely*
agreed with and supported Jerome Bibuld's position?
If Taylor Kingston would like to make that claim, then
I may be able to ask Jerome Bibuld to corroborate it,
as far as he can with his knowledge of Taylor Kingston.
If not, then it seems fair enough to me to say that
there was *some disagreement*, at least, between Jerome
Bibuld and Taylor Kingston about USCF policy toward
chess in pro-apartheid South Africa. I find it hard
to believe that Jerome Bibuld would not have regarded
that disagreement, if it had become known to him, as
a kind of dispute.
--Nick
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Would Taylor Kingston say that he *always completely*
>agreed with and supported Jerome Bibuld's position?
>If Taylor Kingston would like to make that claim, then
>I may be able to ask Jerome Bibuld to corroborate it,
>as far as he can with his knowledge of Taylor Kingston.
>If not, then it seems fair enough to me to say that
>there was *some disagreement*, at least, between Jerome
>Bibuld and Taylor Kingston about USCF policy toward
>chess in pro-apartheid South Africa. I find it hard
>to believe that Jerome Bibuld would not have regarded
>that disagreement, if it had become known to him, as
>a kind of dispute.
No, it's not fair, Nick.
If anyone ever needed a clear example of Nick's sleazy and dishonest
Usenet behavior, this is it.
First, Nick claimed that he'd heard of a dispute between Kingston and
Bibuld.
With no one able to produce any evidence of the actual dispute, Nick
asks Kingston if he "always completely" agreed with and *supported*
[my emphasis] Bibuld's position, with no reference to whether Kingston
actually *expressed* any disagreement in public.
Nick lamely concludes that Bibuld would have regarded this as a "kind
of dispute", even if the two never discussed the topic with each
other, and neither of them explicitly discussed the other's position!!
This is not what one normally means by the term "dispute".
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
Evidently, Nick should be very careful when sitting on walls.
>
>--Nick
Nick
> CONTRA NICK'S CLAIMS
>
> Contra Nick Bourbaki's claim, I did not write
> that Finns are Scandinavians.
I did *not* write that Larry Parr wrote *explicitly*
that the 'Finns are Scandinavians'. I did write
that Larry Parr had apparently referred to the
Finns as Scandinavians.
Here's exactly what Larry Parr wrote:
"Having spent about four months of my life in
Scandinavia, I figure that long winters with
little daylight are reflected in the suicide rates.
*Swedes, Finns and Norwegians* have traditionally
been reckoned as taciturn and darkish figures...."
--Larry Parr (26 August 2005)
Swedes and Norwegians are Scandinavians.
*If* Larry Parr *really* knew that Finns are *not*
Scandinavians, then I find it extremely odd that
he would follow a sentence about 'Scandinavia'
with the phrase, 'Swedes, Finns and Norwegians',
placing the Finns between two Scandinavian peoples.
So here's exactly what I wrote in response:
"Larry Parr *seems* to regard the Finns as Scandinavians."
> On the subject of racism and lying, I am genuinely
> surprised that Mr. Bourbaki only ranks me as a liar --
> an enormous one, to be sure -- and not also as a
> racist along his claimed Boozian-Sloanian lines.
It still seems unclear to me to what extent Larry
Parr may be a racist. I may consider more evidence
when that becomes available to me.
> Contra Mr. Bourbaki's claim, I don't believe
> that 2300+ ELO killer-diller NM Kingston and I
> have been arguing about who is the bigger liar.
> We have been arguing about whose personal character
> is the greater depository of Stan Booz's favorite
> substance. (Will Mr. Bourbaki now issue one of
> his rare corrections?)
I was not attempting to describe the protracted
conflict between Larry Parr and Taylor Kingston
in one consise phrase. I regret it if Larry Parr
misconstrued what I wrote as that kind of attempt.
I shall leave it to Larry Parr and Taylor Kingston
to present their own descriptions of the conflict
between them. What did the dying Mercutio say
in Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet'? :-)
On the subject of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner",
I don't have to guess. Some of my relatives have
just come to stay with us for a while, and I expect
to be doing things with them. I prefer to spend
more time with my family than with Usenet trolls.
I have no doubt that their lies will still be there,
whether or not I ever choose to read them again.
--Nick
Taylor Kingston
Nick wrote:
> Apart from the question of whether evidence exists only
> in rec.games.chess.politics (which Louis Blair has attempted
> to address) of a past dispute between Jerome Bibuld and
> Taylor Kingston about USCF policy toward chess in
> pro-apartheid South Africa, there is the question of
> to what extent such a dispute may have existed anywhere
> between Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston.
Boy, I must say, Nick, that when you get an idée fixe, you just
don't want to let go of it, no matter what the facts are. As I
explained earlier, what you describe never happened.
I have already told you the plain facts. But if you want to waste
your time investigating this, be my guest.
Catalan
"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:7bpeh15o6ub0c5vkc...@4ax.com...
> No, it's not fair, Nick.
>
> If anyone ever needed a clear example of Nick's sleazy and dishonest
> Usenet behavior, this is it.
>
> First, Nick claimed that he'd heard of a dispute between Kingston and
> Bibuld.
Yes, I can't get over how much our anonymous Nick's logic bears a striking
resemblance to Larry Parr.
Catalan
"Nick" <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125608053....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I have no doubt that their lies will still be there,
> whether or not I ever choose to read them again.
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
politi...@gmail.com
then at the fiery hunt? >>
politi...@gmail.com
The Historian
Nick wrote:
>
> I shall leave it to Larry Parr and Taylor Kingston
> to present their own descriptions of the conflict
> between them. What did the dying Mercutio say
> in Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet'? :-)
"Ask for me to-morrow, and you will find me a grave man."
politi...@gmail.com
As characters, R & J are lame-o.
Nick
> "Nick" <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Of course, the context was snipped by Mike Murray.
I already have explained how my interest began in this matter.
It's possible that I was misinformed, as Taylor Kingston claims,
by my source. My source usually has been reliable enough,
but no one's memory is perfect.
> > Would Taylor Kingston say that he *always completely*
> > agreed with and supported Jerome Bibuld's position?
As far as I know, Taylor Kingston has not answered this
question yet.
Mike Murray seems to like responding on apparent behalf
of Taylor Kingston. By any chance, has Mike Murray been
appointed as Taylor Kingston's representative?
> > If Taylor Kingston would like to make that claim, then
> > I may be able to ask Jerome Bibuld to corroborate it,
> > as far as he can with his knowledge of Taylor Kingston.
>From what I have heard, Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston have
met in real life, and they may have had some communications
that were *not necessarily* reproduced for everyone else
to read in rec.games.chess.*.
My impression is that Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston
are not favourably disposed toward each other, but either
of these men should feel free to correct that impression,
if it needs to be corrected.
> > If not, then it seems fair enough to me to say that
> > there was *some disagreement*,
Please note *exactly* what I wrote (above):
"If not, then it seems fair enough to me to say that
there was *some disagreement*..."
I meant: Not complete agreement = some disagreement.
Later, Mike Murray apparently makes an implied attempt
to distort what I have written (above).
> > at least, between Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston
> > about USCF policy toward chess in pro-apartheid South
> > Africa. I find it hard to believe that Jerome Bibuld
> > would not have regarded that disagreement, if it had
> > become known to him, as a kind of dispute.
Here are some comments on my last sentence (above):
1) Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston may or may not
have had *'some disagreement'* (my words) about that.
I have *asked* Taylor Kingston to state his view,
if he wishes.
2) *If* Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston did have
*some disagreement*, then Jerome Bibuld *may* have
known of it. I did *not* write or intend to imply
that Jerome Bibuld necessarily did *not* know of it.
I am *not certain* of exactly what Jerome Bibuld
knows (or knew) because I have not been able to
ask him yet. Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston
*could* have some differences of memory.
3) Jerome Bibuld was passionately opposed to apartheid,
and he took *any disagreement* about it very seriously.
From what I have heard, any such disagreement known
to him about it tended to become a dispute.
In short, my last sentence (above in the quoted text)
was meant to address the *possibility* that the views
of Jerome Bibuld and Taylor Kingston did *not coincide*
about USCF policy toward chess in South Africa.
*If* that's true, then perhaps Taylor Kingston could
have regarded his differences with Jerome Bibuld as a
mere *disagreement* and perhaps Jerome Bibuld could have
regarded his differences with Taylor Kingston (using
stronger terms) as 'a kind of dispute'.
I acknowledge that there's some semantic distance between
saying that 'A and B had a *disagreement*' and 'A and B
had a *dispute*'. In retrospect, I could have--more
cautiously--referred to a supposed 'disagreement' rather
than a supposed 'dispute' between Jerome Bibuld and
Taylor Kingston. So I may have been able to improve
on my choice of noun, but my time to write was short.
Only someone as determined to attack me personally as
Mike Murray could apparently exaggerate, by implication,
the semantic distance between 'disagreement' and 'dispute'
into what he alleges was a 'clear example' of 'sleazy
and dishonest Usenet behavior'.
Taylor Kingston's initial response, assuming that it's
true, was fair enough to me. Taylor Kingston wrote
that I had been 'misinformed' (by my source).
> No, it's not fair, Nick.
Again, what I wrote (above) was "If not, it seems fair
enough to me to say there was *some disagreement*..."
Not complete agreement = some disagreement
> If anyone ever needed a clear example of Nick's
> sleazy and dishonest Usenet behavior, this is it.
> (snipped more rubbish by Mike Murray)
Taylor Kingston's initial response was fair enough:
he wrote that I had been 'misinformed' by my source.
Mike Murray seems determined to exaggerate the semantic
difference between 'disagreement' and 'dispute' into
his usual kind of 'Nick must be evil' (not a quotation)
denunication against me. In some earlier threads,
I have cited the evidence of Mike Murray's many
dishonest distortions and lies written to attack me.
--Nick