GetLocation
Sam Sloan
http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
for locating false posters.
For example, yesterday I was able to use this service to establish
that Neil Brennen had posted a fake anonymous biography of me.
I moved my Internet service from Jamaica Queens to the Morris Heights
Section of the Bronx on July 25-26, 2005.
Since the move, my Verio postings have been from
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.45.216.80
My last posting from Jamaica Queens was on July 25, 2005 at 4:05 AM
under Re: What's Next for Chess HQ? where I wrote "Hanke wrote that
right here".
It was from
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.202.94.119
My next posting was the following day from the Bronx:
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:12:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.45.216.80
Under Subject: Re: Chess and Supreme Court I wrote "I will have to
post this one on my website too."
This service should make it more easy to catch the fake posters.
Sam Sloan
Liam Too
It's not dependable just like any other IP locator. I just used it and
it says that I'm located in Dallas, Texas. I'm in the midwest but not
in Texas.
Anders Thulin
> I am intrigued by the potential of
> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
> for locating false posters.
Don't trust it over much. Doublecheck it against a competing service,
such as MaxMind GeoIP City.
GeoBytes says I am in Uppsala, Sweden -- which is off by 550 kilometers.
Don't know how they got that. Maxmind at least gets the city right.
--
Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
Goran Tomic
news:42f21810....@ca.news.verio.net...
>I am intrigued by the potential of
> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
> for locating false posters.
>
I'm not surprised about Mr. Brennen's behavior. He misrepresented himself as
chess historian and after some discussion on this list he confessed that he
is not chess historian in reality, but some people think that he is chess
historian and that's reason why he undersigned himself as chess historian
(because his violent, un-controllable behavior if somebody was wrong, some
people called him The Histerian).
Mr. Brennen very often used different nicknames and blasphemed all chess
players (he is very weak chess player) and chess journalists.
Because his behavior he expelled himself from chess world and serious
discussion on this newsgroup.
But, his patron, Mr. Kingston is not too far from Neil's behavior.
Regards,
Goran Tomic
Taylor Kingston
Sam Sloan wrote:
> I am intrigued by the potential of
> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
> for locating false posters.
>
> For example, yesterday I was able to use this service to establish
> that Neil Brennen had posted a fake anonymous biography of me.
If that is so, then by the same logic Larry Parr, "Jr" and "Cynic"
are all the same person, as they generally show the same
NNTP-Posting-Host. Yet they insist otherwise, and apparently it is
possible for different people to show the same host ID if they all
happen to access the web through the same Netscape server, according to
a recent post by Liam Too.
So I'm not sure if the 68.84.120.191 host ID indicates Brennen or
just someone else logging on via Yahoo.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
In addition to trying to identify the fake posters who posted more
than one hundred fake messages under my name during the recent
election period, I would like to identify several fake posters who
inhabited this group in the past. Among them are:
Dr. Rev. Calvin Hindoo Qusz Jr.
SlamStoan
The Old Professor
Liam
The Dirty Vicar
The Masked Bishop
It has been widely suspected that the identies of some of them are Jim
Eade, Tim Hanke, Jerry Graham and possibly Bruce Draney, but this has
never been proven.
Sam Sloan
Liam Too
> In addition to trying to identify the fake posters who posted more
> than one hundred fake messages under my name during the recent
> election period, I would like to identify several fake posters who
> inhabited this group in the past. Among them are:
>
> Dr. Rev. Calvin Hindoo Qusz Jr.
> SlamStoan
> The Old Professor
> Liam
> The Dirty Vicar
> The Masked Bishop
>
> It has been widely suspected that the identies of some of them are Jim
> Eade, Tim Hanke, Jerry Graham and possibly Bruce Draney, but this has
> never been proven.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam,
I hope you know that Liam and Liam Too are two separate and distinct
persons. Liam is John Smith and Liam Too is Lance Smith.
Lance
Catalan
> Dr. Rev. Calvin Hindoo Qusz Jr.
--Kevin Bachler
> The Dirty Vicar
--Frank Niro
The Historian
Sam Sloan wrote:
> I am intrigued by the potential of
> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
> for locating false posters.
>
> For example, yesterday I was able to use this service to establish
> that Neil Brennen had posted a fake anonymous biography of me.
Where was this "fake anonymous" biography posted? And more importantly,
under what screen name? I've been using "The Historian" as a handle for
a few months now.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
Sure. You posted it right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Sloan&diff=20153100&oldid=20103784
Note your ID 68.84.120.191
You did not use a screen name.
You then reposted what you wrote to this group under Re: Salamalaikum
from kalash velley Chitral and added the comment
"Did Sloan write this? It sounds like someone is mocking him."
All and all a typical sneaky and despicable act, so characteristic of
Neil Brennen.
Sam Sloan
The Historian
Sam Sloan wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2005 15:56:03 -0700, "The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sam Sloan wrote:
> >> I am intrigued by the potential of
> >> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
> >> for locating false posters.
> >>
> >> For example, yesterday I was able to use this service to establish
> >> that Neil Brennen had posted a fake anonymous biography of me.
> >
> >Where was this "fake anonymous" biography posted? And more importantly,
> >under what screen name? I've been using "The Historian" as a handle for
> >a few months now.
>
> Sure. You posted it right here:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Sloan&diff=20153100&oldid=20103784
That is Wikipedia, a website that asks that people in the know correct
errors. The biographical entry had some errors, so I corrected them.
> Note your ID 68.84.120.191
>
> You did not use a screen name.
Since it's not a newsgroup, I don't see how I could have used a screen
name.
> You then reposted what you wrote to this group under Re: Salamalaikum
> from kalash velley Chitral and added the comment
>
> "Did Sloan write this? It sounds like someone is mocking him."
Yes, I wrote that.
> All and all a typical sneaky and despicable act, so characteristic of
> Neil Brennen.
So posting corrections to Wikipedia is "sneaky and despicable"?
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>> On 4 Aug 2005 15:56:03 -0700, "The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Sam Sloan wrote:
>> >> I am intrigued by the potential of
>> >> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
>> >> for locating false posters.
>> >>
>> >> For example, yesterday I was able to use this service to establish
>> >> that Neil Brennen had posted a fake anonymous biography of me.
>> >
>> >Where was this "fake anonymous" biography posted? And more importantly,
>> >under what screen name? I've been using "The Historian" as a handle for
>> >a few months now.
>>
>> Sure. You posted it right here:
>>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Sloan&diff=20153100&oldid=20103784
>
>That is Wikipedia, a website that asks that people in the know correct
>errors. The biographical entry had some errors, so I corrected them.
>
>> Note your ID 68.84.120.191
>>
>> You did not use a screen name.
>
>Since it's not a newsgroup, I don't see how I could have used a screen
>name.
Another lie. You can log in with a screen name and a password. You did
not do that. Instead, you posted anonymously. Fortunately, you did not
realize that there is a way to trace you back and identify you as the
poster.
>> You then reposted what you wrote to this group under Re: Salamalaikum
>> from kalash velley Chitral and added the comment
>>
>> "Did Sloan write this? It sounds like someone is mocking him."
>
>Yes, I wrote that.
>
>> All and all a typical sneaky and despicable act, so characteristic of
>> Neil Brennen.
>
>So posting corrections to Wikipedia is "sneaky and despicable"?
It certainly is. Your "corrections" were nothing more than the
personal attacks that you so often post here.
Fortunately, a site administrator of Wikipedia immediately recognized
your "corrections" for what they were and cancelled all of them.
Sam Sloan
The Historian
Sam Sloan wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2005 18:18:26 -0700, "The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sam Sloan wrote:
> >> On 4 Aug 2005 15:56:03 -0700, "The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Sam Sloan wrote:
> >> >> I am intrigued by the potential of
> >> >> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
> >> >> for locating false posters.
> >> >>
> >> >> For example, yesterday I was able to use this service to establish
> >> >> that Neil Brennen had posted a fake anonymous biography of me.
> >> >
> >> >Where was this "fake anonymous" biography posted? And more importantly,
> >> >under what screen name? I've been using "The Historian" as a handle for
> >> >a few months now.
> >>
> >> Sure. You posted it right here:
> >>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Sloan&diff=20153100&oldid=20103784
> >
> >That is Wikipedia, a website that asks that people in the know correct
> >errors. The biographical entry had some errors, so I corrected them.
> >
> >> Note your ID 68.84.120.191
> >>
> >> You did not use a screen name.
> >
> >Since it's not a newsgroup, I don't see how I could have used a screen
> >name.
>
> Another lie. You can log in with a screen name and a password.
OK, I stand corrected. I didn't know you could register a screen name
with them.
You did
> not do that. Instead, you posted anonymously.
I did no such thing. I merely corrected the errors in the Wikipedia
entry.
Fortunately, you did not
> realize that there is a way to trace you back and identify you as the
> poster.
I made no attempt to hide my identity.
> >> You then reposted what you wrote to this group under Re: Salamalaikum
> >> from kalash velley Chitral and added the comment
> >>
> >> "Did Sloan write this? It sounds like someone is mocking him."
> >
> >Yes, I wrote that.
> >
> >> All and all a typical sneaky and despicable act, so characteristic of
> >> Neil Brennen.
> >
> >So posting corrections to Wikipedia is "sneaky and despicable"?
>
> It certainly is. Your "corrections" were nothing more than the
> personal attacks that you so often post here.
Do you deny you are a convicted felon, with a kidnapping conviction,
and have been barred from securities trading?
Goran Tomic
news:1123181713.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sam Sloan wrote:
>> I am intrigued by the potential of
>> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
>> for locating false posters.
>>
>> For example, yesterday I was able to use this service to establish
>> that Neil Brennen had posted a fake anonymous biography of me.
>
Mr. Sloan revealed that Mr. Brennen was false poster. Mr. Brennen (The
Histerian) confessed it. The question is: Would you still support Mr.
Brennen?
Goran Tomic
news:1123213789.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >Yes, I wrote that.
>> >
We all could find strength and follow newsgroup rules to kick off all false
posters and cheaters from this newsgroup. This newsgroups would serve for
chess players and chess fans.
Mr. Brennen was the first who confessed himself because he was cached and
proved like cheater and false poster.
The question is: If somebody is false poster and cheater on this newsgroup,
could he be honest in ordinary life. In business contact or in personal
relation? I think that the answer is no.
I'm disgusting of such dishonest people! Their instrict dirty threatens to
spoil all this newsgroup! So, I think that we would draw conclusion that
would be correct to kick Mr. Taylor Kingston off this newsgroup. Because Mr.
Kingston support Neil Brenenn in his dirty false mails.
Thanks for Mr. Sloan who revealed these false posters and cheaters.
Jules77
>Sam Sloan
Nope, you can't trust it...
I just checked and it said I'm on Sudafed, when I actually use
Benadryl.
It did however state I'm an OLM which is correct, but it said my last
game was played in 2004, it was actually 1994.. Nope.. I would not
trust this site too much.
Nothing proved that I can see...
jame...@aol.com
and the serious to be funny. It is like a cyclic Platzwechsel in a
chess problem - Lord, that is always funny!
Goran Tomic
news:1123241229.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >This service should make it more easy to catch the fake posters.
>
>
>>Sam Sloan
>
>
> Nope, you can't trust it...
>
Mr. Brennen confessed that he was that false poster.
Tom Klem
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:42f21810....@ca.news.verio.net...
Taylor Kingston
> I'm disgusting of such dishonest people! Their instrict dirty threatens to
> spoil all this newsgroup!
To have Goran Tomic, known thief of copyrighted material, complain
about "dishonest people," is like Al Capone complaining about tax
cheats.
> So, I think that we would draw conclusion that
> would be correct to kick Mr. Taylor Kingston off this newsgroup. Because Mr.
> Kingston support Neil Brenenn in his dirty false mails.
I do not know what "dirty false mails" by Neil Brennen this refers
to. I do know of many false posts here by Goran Tomic, including many
gross personal insults.
As for Brennen's amendments to Sloan's Wikipedia entry, I have
offered no opinion; therefore it cannot be said that I support Brennen
in this regard.
I only noted that the NNTP-Posting-Host may not be as sure an
indicator of a poster's identity as Sloan assumed. Brennen's statement
that he did make the alterations renders that question moot.
For what my opinion is worth, I feel that Sloan putting up a
Wikipedia entry about himself was an act of petty egotism and laughable
pretentiousness. The only person I know who thinks Sloan deserves any
such treatment is Sloan himself. His rosy self-portrait, which
conveniently omitted many unsavory facts, apparently made such a
tempting target that Brennen could not restrain his satirical urges.
Even so, as far as I know Brennen wrote nothing false.
And according to Sloan, an editor has the right to revise, in
virtually any way he chooses, anything anyone submits to him (see our
discussion, elsewhere on this group, of Larry Evan's alteration of
something I wrote). And since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, Sloan,
by his own bizarre logic, would therefore have to consider Brennen as
being within his rights.
Still, the alteration does not sit quite right with me. I personally
would not have done it. A better way, I think, would be for Wikipedia
to allow multiple entries on the same subject -- equal time, so to
speak, for opposing viewpoints. Thus we could have Sloan's Dorian
Gray-style self-portrait alongside Brennen's less flattering treatment,
rather than one superceding the other.
Mike Murray
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>A better way, I think, would be for Wikipedia
>to allow multiple entries on the same subject -- equal time, so to
>speak, for opposing viewpoints. Thus we could have Sloan's Dorian
>Gray-style self-portrait alongside Brennen's less flattering treatment,
>rather than one superceding the other.
Except that one does not consult an encyclopedia to view an argument
in progress. On controversial topics, we expect a concise summary of
the conflict by a (presumably) neutral third party.
Taylor Kingston
Mike Murray wrote:
> Except that one does not consult an encyclopedia to view an argument
> in progress. On controversial topics, we expect a concise summary of
> the conflict by a (presumably) neutral third party.
True, which brings into question the whole Wikipedia methodology.
Unlike, say, World Book or Britannica, there seems to be no competent
editorial control nor any guarantee that the contributors are either
neutral or knowledgeable. An encyclopedia to which anyone can
contribute can't be taken seriously.
Goran Tomic
Newsgroups:
> As for Brennen's amendments to Sloan's Wikipedia entry, I have
> offered no opinion; therefore it cannot be said that I support Brennen
> in this regard.
You have to say clearly do you still support Mr. Brennen in his dirty doings
(false posts, using different nicknames, posts false biography, use vulgar
worlds, shortly in his dirty doings!).
If you support him (he confessed that he is so called "dirty poster" or
"spam sender") you are the same. I wouldn't be surprised, because I have
statement that you are mentally twins and that you are the dirtiest posters
on this newsgroup. So, my advice is to kick you off (both, you and Mr.
Brennen) from this newsgroup and generally out from chess events and every
event connected in any way with chess. That's my opinion. So we have dirty
posters KICK OFF THIS NEWSGROUP. DON'T SPOIL KING'S GAME WITH YOUR PRESENCE!
YOU ARE FINALLY REVEALED!
Sam Sloan
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
This is not true. There is editorial control. Although I am new to
this, I can see that there are teams of volunteers who check every
entry.
One of the rules is that personal attacks are not allowed. Neil
Brennen's "biography" of me was obviously a personal attack and was
immediately removed by one of the site administrators.
I did not write the original encyclopedia entry about me. I happened
to discover it by accident while doing an Internet search. As you can
see, it was written by somebody named Amorrow. I do not know this
person. Never heard of him. However, I can see that he has written or
edited several hundred articles for the encyclopedia.
Amorrow writes extensively about the Elizabeth Morgan Case. If you
know about that case, you will immediately understand why Amorrow
would write about me because our cases are similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Morgan
Elizabeth Morgan was a medical doctor in Virginia who kidnapped her
daughter to New Zealand to prevent her ex-husband from seeing his
daughter. She was arrested and sent to prison but released by an Act
of Congress. Her husband still to this day has never seen the child
again.
The Elizabeth Morgan Case was a hot item in the press when my own case
originally arose and so there are connections between the two.
Here are similarities betwen my case and the Elizabeth Morgan Case:
Both cases took place in Virginia.
Both cases took place in 1986
In both cases the parent took his or her own child and in both cases
the parent was extradicted and brought back.
However, there are big differences:
In the Elizabeth Morgan case the father had court ordered visitation
and the mother violated the court order.
In my case, the mother was in no way involved. She went back to
Pakistan in 1982 when the baby was only nine months old and has never
since expressed any interest in the child. I raised my daughter as a
single parent. hen I found out that religious fanatics connected with
Jerry Falwell but having no biological connection with my daughter
planned to kidnap my daughter, I fled the state of Virginia and then
the country going first with my daughter to Argentina for a chess
tournament. This was before Charles and Shelby Roberts had even filed
a court case. Nevertheless, they succeeded in kidnapping the child
four years later with considerable help from my brother Creighton and
they have gotten away with it.
What this shows is that a mother who kidnaps a child from the father
gets away with it, whereas a single father who keeps his child away
from criminals who happen to be members of the approved state religion
can be prosecuted.
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
> One of the rules is that personal attacks are not allowed. Neil
> Brennen's "biography" of me was obviously a personal attack and was
> immediately removed by one of the site administrators.
No, it's still there last I checked. And it appears that by using the
"compare" option, one can cross-check various entries. Thus I was wrong
to think that the latest entry completely supercedes all previous
entries.
> I did not write the original encyclopedia entry about me. I happened
> to discover it by accident while doing an Internet search. As you can
> see, it was written by somebody named Amorrow. I do not know this
> person. Never heard of him.
If this is true, then I retract my comments about Sam submitting an
entry about himself, and apologize for jumping to that conclusion.
Sam Sloan
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
There is new news on this that just came out 54 minutes ago.
Perhaps our current discussion and debate helped trigger this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050805/wl_nm/media_wikipedia_dc
Web's Wikipedia to tighten editorial rules-founder 54 minutes ago
BERLIN (Reuters) - Wikipedia, the Web encyclopaedia written and edited
by Internet users from all over the world, plans to impose stricter
editorial rules to prevent vandalism of its content, founder Jimmy
Wales was quoted as saying Friday.
Jürgen R.
>
>Amorrow writes extensively about the Elizabeth Morgan Case. If you
>know about that case, you will immediately understand why Amorrow
>would write about me because our cases are similar.
You mean you were also fucking your daughter?
>
Goran Tomic
as you can read on:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050805/wl_nm/media_wikipedia_dc
>Wikipedia, the Web encyclopaedia written and edited >by Internet users from
>all over the world, plans to >impose stricter editorial rules to prevent
>vandalism of its >content, founder Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying
> >Friday.
Your fellow and man who you support, Neil Brennen (The Histo(e)rian) is
indirectly accused for vandalism. If you are his supporter you are also
accused for vandalism, false posts, misrepresenting and other amoral and
dirty doings. If you don's distance yourself from the "dirty man" (in moral
sense) you would be also amoral and dirty poster like him. He was several
times accused because similar doings but this is first time that Mr. Neil
Brennen confessed that he was false poster. His confess has enormous
importance for all free thinkers and writers who are fighting against dirty
in chess. So, you have to distance yourself from that dirty man or you would
be regard the same (because you supported him for years).
That dirty man have to kick off all chess events an chess generally (by the
way he scarcely could move the piece).
So, are you cheater, false poster and dirty man like Mr. Neil Brennen. Five
thousand people want to hear your answer!!! We are waiting... It's your move
Mr. Kingston!!! Are you vandal like Mr. Brennen?
Cordially,
Goran Tomic
Goran Tomic
news:1123251925.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
Shame you! Vandal! You would spread chess culture and you spread vandalism!!
You supported Mr. Brennen who confessed that he is false poster and
indirectly Wikipedia named Mr. Brennen as "vandal". Only vandal could
support vandal. Shame you! You are accused for the worst crime in
intellectual world: for false posts, cheats and misrepresenting! If you have
a bit of honest you would go away and never come back on this newsgroup.
Now, each reader knows who you are! Vandals! Go away from this newsgroup,
vandals! It's newsgroup for honest chess players and chess funs. GO AWAY
VANDALS! Go away! Vandals without culture! Shame you!
Lemenzo
anyone who has access to the internet. Get to any topic first (such as Sam
Sloan) and whatever garbage is written becomes the MAIN TEXT, and then
everyone else has a shot at editing the nonsense.
I would never consult Wiki-Pedia for anything. It would be more credible to
just post a question on any newsgroup and take the first answer as GOSPEL.
Johnny Wales was probably a pimp before he had the ingenious idea of
creating a bogus encyclopedia written by the most ignorant people on earth;
those that have endless hours of internet time due to unemployment or
disability.
parrt...@cs.com
Tomic
If Neil Brennen has admitted to posting under false names (perhaps
wmiketwo and cynic also?) then he indicts himself.
Having said that, I don't favor kicking him or ELO-super-master NM
Taylor
Kingston off the sites. Frankly, I don't care what they write short of
death threats, etc. and the inciting thereof.
Let the gents remain.
Goran Tomic
news:1123300064....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> If Neil Brennen has admitted to posting under false names (perhaps
> wmiketwo and cynic also?) then he indicts himself.
>
> Having said that, I don't favor kicking him or ELO-super-master NM
> Taylor
> Kingston off the sites. Frankly, I don't care what they write short of
> death threats, etc. and the inciting thereof.
>
> Let the gents remain.
>
I think that Vandal Kingston and his Vandal Brennen (The Histerian) would
realize that they don't belong to this forum because they are not chess
players and honest people. Mr Brennen confessed that he wrote under false
name, so he is cheater. There is no long step from cheater to thief or to
killer (it's enough for Mr Brennen to seat down on somebody to squash him to
death). Mr Vandal Kingston constantly supported Mr Brennen in his dirty
doings, false names, misrepresenting himself, some events, biography's etc.
Mr Vandal Brennen is ordinary liar! So, we all have to find strength to
expel them ("Jerky-slave", "Wlod", "Hanke-with hole in pocket" "Masked
Bishop";) from this chess forum. They can find their "Dirty forum" for
cheaters and thieves and write, cheat and steal one from another. They don't
belong to cultural, chess forum. They spoiled chess, generally, and this
newsgroup specially, several years and it's the time to say- stop for
cheaters and thieves! Because they (Vandal Brennen directly and Vandal
Kingston indirectly) confessed they are cheaters and thieves!
The Historian
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> <GO AWAY VANDALS! Go away! Vandals without culture! Shame you!> Goran
> Tomic
>
> If Neil Brennen has admitted to posting under false names (perhaps
> wmiketwo and cynic also?) then he indicts himself.
Unfortunately for this line of argument, Neil Brennen has NOT posted
under a false name. I merely corrected a Wikipedia posting.
Goran Tomic
news:1123316376.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I merely corrected a Wikipedia posting.
>
So, why they wrote this?
-------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050805/wl_nm/media_wikipedia_dc
Wikipedia, the Web encyclopaedia written and edited by Internet users from
all over the world, plans to impose stricter editorial rules to prevent
vandalism of its content, founder Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying Friday.
--------------
Everything is clear. Don't try to escape save yourself. They named you
Vandal, other words you are without elementary culture. You (bloodless)
admitted that you used false name and that you sent false post and false
information! So, you are worse than ordinary thief, pickpocket. You tried to
cheat chess players! But we are chess players. We read these posts. You
tried to cheat fans of King's game. You used false name! Who are you? I
know. You are false man! Vandal! Thanks Mr Sloan who revealed these two
Vandals, Vandal Brenner and his supporter Vandal Kingston. He supported you
for years, so it seems that he is cheater and thief as you. You are not our
fellowship. You are like parasites on this newsgroup. We are honest and we
like chess. You admitted that you are thieves! So, what do you try to find
on this newsgroup? Everybody could read your admission that you used false
name and wrote false biography, changed the biography of one honest chess
player and honest man. If there is still time Wild West you both would be
tarred and plumaged! It will be justice!
Go away Vandals! You and your fellow in dirty things, Vandal Kingston have
to find company of people similar you (liars, cheaters, pickpockets, and
maybe robbers, murders). GO! GO!
mkwon...@hotmail.com
Geobytes and Maxmind.
Jürgen R.
wrote:
>"The Histerian" Vandal Brennen<Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1123316376.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I merely corrected a Wikipedia posting.
>>
>
>
>So, why they wrote this?
>-------
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050805/wl_nm/media_wikipedia_dc
>Wikipedia, the Web encyclopaedia written and edited by Internet users from
>all over the world, plans to impose stricter editorial rules to prevent
>vandalism of its content, founder Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying Friday.
The reason why they did wrote this, dear Mr Gorass, is that all the
Sam Sloans in the world who ever shacked up with a Far Eastern whore
now think that they are experts on the laguages and customs of the
societies to which these whores belonged. They then proceed to wrote
articles in the Wikipedia, which consequently is, let us say, not
completely reliable.
There is no solution to this problem, but that doesn't mean one can't
hold meetings to discuss it.
Chess One
bad for these chess forums, and am surprised that Taylor can't come out and
say so himself. Perhaps he doesn't agree that its bad?
I also resent Taylor Kingston's characterisation of Brennen's stalkings and
distortions of other people as 'disagreements'.
Phil Innes
"Goran Tomic" <tom...@cg.yu> wrote in message
news:11233188...@ella.cg.yu...
Catalan
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Nh2Je.1876$f.1727@trndny09...
>I concur that Brennen's specious behavior and constant falsification is
>very bad for these chess forums, and am surprised that Taylor can't come
>out and say so himself. Perhaps he doesn't agree that its bad?
Perhaps he doesn't take the bait and concur to the behavior and
falsification rhetoric. Do you still beat your wife?
The Historian
What I want to know is if Phil is still beating Rob.
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> I concur that Brennen's specious behavior and constant falsification is very
> bad for these chess forums, and am surprised that Taylor can't come out and
> say so himself. Perhaps he doesn't agree that its bad?
Phil, I can't "come out and say so myself" because I am not aware of
any "constant falsification" by Brennen. As Catalan pointed out, you
are committing a complex question fallacy, a favorite device of Parr
and Evans.
Having learned a little in the past day or two about how Wikipedia
works, I consider this whole matter a contrived tempest in a very small
teacup. Contrary to what I first thought, Brennen did not erase
anything in the Sloan entry, he merely added his fact-based viewpoint,
as many other Wikipedia contributors have done. I withdraw even the
mild rebuke of my earlier post.
Which means I really jumped into this thread not knowing diddley of
what I was talking about. I mistakenly believed Sloan had written his
own Wikipedia entry, and I mistakenly believed Brennen had indelibly
altered it. Wrong on both counts. Shoulda kept my mouth shut.
> I also resent Taylor Kingston's characterisation of Brennen's stalkings and
> distortions of other people as 'disagreements'.
Good grief! Come off it, Phil.
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1123337513....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Soft soap apologies from Taylor Kingston who just can't see anything wrong
with constant malicious distortions and stalkings, mischief making or his
own sole-sourcing of Averbakh without a blush, even after advisement!
I take Goran Tomic's 'tar and feather' comments as figures of speech, rather
than actual recommendations, but completely agree with their sense of
outrage on what constitutes fair reporting.
These disgusting characterisations and evasions are not worth personal
reply.
Phil Innes
The Historian
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > I concur that Brennen's specious behavior and constant falsification is very
> > bad for these chess forums, and am surprised that Taylor can't come out and
> > say so himself. Perhaps he doesn't agree that its bad?
>
> Phil, I can't "come out and say so myself" because I am not aware of
> any "constant falsification" by Brennen. As Catalan pointed out, you
> are committing a complex question fallacy, a favorite device of Parr
> and Evans.
> Having learned a little in the past day or two about how Wikipedia
> works, I consider this whole matter a contrived tempest in a very small
> teacup. Contrary to what I first thought, Brennen did not erase
> anything in the Sloan entry, he merely added his fact-based viewpoint,
> as many other Wikipedia contributors have done. I withdraw even the
> mild rebuke of my earlier post.
> Which means I really jumped into this thread not knowing diddley of
> what I was talking about. I mistakenly believed Sloan had written his
> own Wikipedia entry, and I mistakenly believed Brennen had indelibly
> altered it. Wrong on both counts. Shoulda kept my mouth shut.
Hey, this is RGCP! When in Rome, Taylor....
> > I also resent Taylor Kingston's characterisation of Brennen's stalkings and
> > distortions of other people as 'disagreements'.
>
> Good grief! Come off it, Phil.
He'll never let that go, Taylor. The man needs treatment.
Goran Tomic
news:1123337513....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Shoulda kept my mouth shut.
>
Who wrote text under nickname: Salamalaikum
from kalash velley Chitral?
The thief is who steal but also who keeps the bag. So who are the stalkers?
And Vandals? Vandal Brennen and Vandal Kingston. Shame you! Go away! We are
honest people and the worst thing is when somebody is stalker, cheater and
false poster! Go away from this newsgroup! Find newsgroup for stalkers! You
will all find your end in tar and feather! GO!!!!
samsloan
>
> The reason why they did wrote this, dear Mr Gorass, is that all the
> Sam Sloans in the world who ever shacked up with a Far Eastern whore
> now think that they are experts on the laguages and customs of the
> societies to which these whores belonged. They then proceed to wrote
> articles in the Wikipedia, which consequently is, let us say, not
> completely reliable.
Jürgen R. is, of course, refering to my wife and my daughter and
several books I have written.
This is the kind of posting that some others feel obliged to reply to,
but I feel that it is best to just ignore it.
Sam Sloan
Catalan
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1123337513....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Good grief! Come off it, Phil.
Let me translate that for his Phildom: Sorry! Give it a rest Governor.
The Historian
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Having learned a little in the past day or two about how Wikipedia
> works, I consider this whole matter a contrived tempest in a very small
> teacup. Contrary to what I first thought, Brennen did not erase
> anything in the Sloan entry, he merely added his fact-based viewpoint,
While I did correct the errors and ommisions in the Wikipedia article,
such as the material about Sloan's being banned from securities
trading, his felony conviction, and the kidnapping, I also dropped a
sentence that mentioned Sloan's mother; it would have been vulgar to
include her in my revision. But then again, the entire article was
vulgar before I got to it.
> as many other Wikipedia contributors have done. I withdraw even the
> mild rebuke of my earlier post.
> Which means I really jumped into this thread not knowing diddley of
> what I was talking about. I mistakenly believed Sloan had written his
> own Wikipedia entry,
Why did Sam Sloan become an honest man in your eyes? You don't actually
believe him, do you? Of course he wrote the damn thing.
jame...@aol.com
Man, when you hold a fracking grudge, you hold a fracking grudge.
Is part of the cultural evolution of man to be able to recognize what
is truly trivial and leave it alone, not simply for one's personal
peace of mind, but for the peace of mind of those around him? Certainly
ole Jacob "the Bronk", a linesman for PBS, and a chessplayer, might
have asked that question.
Haverflocken, "James"
PS - It is without irony that "Neil Innes" is listed as one of the
eccentrics in Wikipedia? Will there soon be an entry on Neil Brennen as
a "famous prankster" with Philsy as his noted protagonist? Could Phil
stand being No.2? Wait, he already is, at least cranially...
Comic book, similar to the ones by Harvey Pekar, already in the works.
Soon Phil will do the famous "I am a Nerd" commercial, as did Pekar's
bud. Can one hope that Robert Crumb comes out of retirement to do the
drawings, as well as write copy for Shahcom commercials... Oops, that's
a sore one on the hind end of his highness....
jr
small-minded, nasty.
SamSloan
can't. He was born an asshole and he'll always be an asshole. Sloan
looks like a saint compare to Brennan.
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123349172.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >or his own sole-sourcing of Averbakh without a blush, even after
> >advisement!
>
> Man, when you hold a fracking grudge, you hold a fracking grudge.
It was Mr. K who initially wrote to me about Averbakh, and Mr K who 'forgot'
his16 messages to me on the same subject in one month preceeding his
article, and after I advised him that Averbakh might not have been telling
the truth! citing sober Russian sources
These facts he 'forgot' until I returned him his own e-mails 2 months ago -
after claiming he never addressed the subject with me initially - not quite
so!
He claimed he had no memory of them, presumably now he does. The same
correspondence raised the subject of suppressing Laurie's comments which is
more than a little strange in an impartial investigator.
I should not raise these subjects except that I no longer feel that any
reserve is neccessary when someone requires a blind trust in private, then
fatuously abuses it in public, to the point of abusing those he obliged to
secrecy.
The matter would not be worth mentioning if Averbakh had not seen fit to
accuse yet other people of various sorts of calumny.
I am left in wonder about someone who would knowingly publish shit about
colleagues without the slightest question to his subject's motive why he
might do so, especially after being told that the gent might not speak true!
After some 30 messages here in public with me on the same subject, and after
50+ with L. Parr concerning L. Evans on the same subject, Mr. K admitted to
me that he was under-researched and rushed, but still did not adjust his
opinion to why he sole-sourced someone who had particulary nasty things to
say about his 'colleagues'.
It is only a wonder that the Botvinnik family did not sue Chesscafe and T.
Kingston and H. Russell directly as they certainly offered to Averbakh,
especially after other Russian GMs confronted Averbakh's integrity directly
in 64, calling his record false.
> Is part of the cultural evolution of man to be able to recognize what
> is truly trivial and leave it alone, not simply for one's personal
> peace of mind, but for the peace of mind of those around him? Certainly
> ole Jacob "the Bronk", a linesman for PBS, and a chessplayer, might
> have asked that question.
>
> Haverflocken, "James"
>
> PS - It is without irony that "Neil Innes" is listed as one of the
> eccentrics in Wikipedia? Will there soon be an entry on Neil Brennen as
> a "famous prankster" with Philsy as his noted protagonist? Could Phil
> stand being No.2? Wait, he already is, at least cranially...
>
> Comic book, similar to the ones by Harvey Pekar, already in the works.
> Soon Phil will do the famous "I am a Nerd" commercial, as did Pekar's
> bud. Can one hope that Robert Crumb comes out of retirement to do the
> drawings, as well as write copy for Shahcom commercials... Oops, that's
> a sore one on the hind end of his highness....
Thank you for sharing your perspectives on these issues which are comic-book
level indeed - meanwhile adults will determine for themselves just how much
cupidity to allow Taylor Kingston who couldn't think of anything to
criticise even in the person of Neil Brennen, an infamous and malicious
distorter of whatever he doesn't like, and who appears as various other
persons here, all anonymous, and all entirely agree with Taylor Kingston,
and are in fact cited by him. :))
Nonsense surely?
As to you "jamesrynd", what matter is this to you?
Phil Innes
The Historian
Chess One wrote:
> <jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1123349172.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >or his own sole-sourcing of Averbakh without a blush, even after
> > >advisement!
> >
> > Man, when you hold a fracking grudge, you hold a fracking grudge.
>
> It was Mr. K who initially wrote to me about Averbakh, and Mr K who 'forgot'
> his16 messages to me on the same subject in one month preceeding his
> article, and after I advised him that Averbakh might not have been telling
> the truth! citing sober Russian sources
>
> These facts he 'forgot' until I returned him his own e-mails 2 months ago -
> after claiming he never addressed the subject with me initially - not quite
> so!
>
> He claimed he had no memory of them, presumably now he does. The same
> correspondence raised the subject of suppressing Laurie's comments which is
> more than a little strange in an impartial investigator.
No stranger than someone suggesting you not post some of your trash,
out of fear you may damage your reputation.
> I should not raise these subjects except that I no longer feel that any
> reserve is neccessary when someone requires a blind trust in private,
"Here is a warning written in his own words to anyone who thinks that
Mr.
[Innes] would respect any aspect of confidentiality, especially
formally
confidential matters. No other comment is necessary." Phil Innes,
August 5, 2005
then
> fatuously abuses it in public, to the point of abusing those he obliged to
> secrecy.
>
> The matter would not be worth mentioning if Averbakh had not seen fit to
> accuse yet other people of various sorts of calumny.
>
> I am left in wonder about someone who would knowingly publish shit about
> colleagues without the slightest question to his subject's motive why he
> might do so, especially after being told that the gent might not speak true!
>
> After some 30 messages here in public with me on the same subject, and after
> 50+ with L. Parr concerning L. Evans on the same subject, Mr. K admitted to
> me that he was under-researched and rushed, but still did not adjust his
> opinion to why he sole-sourced someone who had particulary nasty things to
> say about his 'colleagues'.
>
> It is only a wonder that the Botvinnik family did not sue Chesscafe and T.
> Kingston and H. Russell directly as they certainly offered to Averbakh,
> especially after other Russian GMs confronted Averbakh's integrity directly
> in 64, calling his record false.
Probably because they didn't have you advising them on the fine points
of the law, Your I-ness.
> > Is part of the cultural evolution of man to be able to recognize what
> > is truly trivial and leave it alone, not simply for one's personal
> > peace of mind, but for the peace of mind of those around him? Certainly
> > ole Jacob "the Bronk", a linesman for PBS, and a chessplayer, might
> > have asked that question.
> >
> > Haverflocken, "James"
> >
> > PS - It is without irony that "Neil Innes" is listed as one of the
> > eccentrics in Wikipedia? Will there soon be an entry on Neil Brennen as
> > a "famous prankster" with Philsy as his noted protagonist? Could Phil
> > stand being No.2? Wait, he already is, at least cranially...
> >
> > Comic book, similar to the ones by Harvey Pekar, already in the works.
> > Soon Phil will do the famous "I am a Nerd" commercial, as did Pekar's
> > bud. Can one hope that Robert Crumb comes out of retirement to do the
> > drawings, as well as write copy for Shahcom commercials... Oops, that's
> > a sore one on the hind end of his highness....
>
> Thank you for sharing your perspectives on these issues which are comic-book
> level indeed - meanwhile adults will determine for themselves just how much
> cupidity to allow Taylor Kingston who couldn't think of anything to
> criticise even in the person of Neil Brennen, an infamous and malicious
> distorter of whatever he doesn't like, and who appears as various other
> persons here, all anonymous, and all entirely agree with Taylor Kingston,
> and are in fact cited by him. :))
No evidence for this claim, of course.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>Why did Sam Sloan become an honest man in your eyes? You don't actually
>believe him, do you? Of course he wrote the damn thing.
Why do you keep making such a ridiculous claim? The article clearly
states that it was written by Amorrow,who has written hundreds of
articles on other subjects, especially child custody? Why don't you
write him and ask if he wrote?
On a related topic, why don't you answer your friend StanB's question
about whether or not you are an asshole?
Sam Sloan
jame...@aol.com
It is only of the most purient interest to me, my good sir. Rest
assured, "I grapple with thee," to secondarily quote Ricardo Montalban
as Khan in "The Wrath of Khan," (which reminds me, I am sitting in a
chair of fine corinthian leather), only when thou has no worthy
opponents as Sir Taylor of Kingston, journalist of (ill?) repute, the
one who changed his surname to satisfy the Amti-Semitic urges of Goran
Tomic, yet is an Irishman of fine name and drinking habits (I hear his
grandfather was hung in Australia).
In this case I just read the bedtime story to myself, to think of
Philsy, and Taylor and Goran, and the Hundred Acre Woods of their
collective minds. I do like playing Philsy-sticks, don't you?
Cornpuffs, "James"
Philling Station
You do not speak nor wright of any chess method of cultivation, and I
much doubt that you are anything overt a 1300 player. Accortingly you
are not much worth repliing to farther, and I will not do so.
I am writting with someone important in the chess worls, a noted player
who's name I cannod memtion, but I can let you know his name has a
vowel. We have made some iteresting diskoveries that await the proper
forum and manner of presentationing, and I cannot diclose it to our own
citizinks of the Hunder-Acre-Woods. I henceforth end our communicatings
hear.
The whole world, all 2 million people what saw my writings, no you to
be a constant vulgarity (know shit, fuck you charlies!) and an
semiliteratte stalker and rubbisher of the most absurd strope. It may
interestr you to no their is caselaw, and a legal gentlemen is
undertasking a reivew of the postentialities of the case with a
distinctive lack of unjustified carelessness. So if you care to find a
Shahcom board in your mailbox - SNORT! - bring it on. But as you are
beneath contremps, I refrains from carrying on so more.
As for Sir Taylor, he soul-sorced the KGB, as I noted in my ChessVile
articles. I will not discuss his strange senze of values here, as I am
finished with the subject for the next 15 minutia, but as you are not
worth writing with, I no longer wright with vu. As Cloud Debussy once
wrote, "La Merde!" And so, tout a vout to vou.
Grape-nuts, Phil
Matt Nemmers
reproduction of the writing style of one Goran Tomic, world-famous Internet
Grandmaster.
"Philling Station" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123379802.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jame...@aol.com
I waited for your much-heralded low rated player attack. It seems odd
that first Phil rejected me as too strong for what he wanted to do with
the program (bring chess to the masses) and now rejects me as a weakie.
It goes round and round so. Did you notice how he threatened me with
the lawsuit gambit, and did well, until, in the last sentence, he
withdrew his offer. It was also odd to see three more paragraphs after
I was "worth dealing with no further."
I wonder if some of these words, like senze, semiliteratte (boy, its a
boner to get that one wrong when you are calling someone that) have
made the new Realspeak dictionary yet?
Ah, Sir Philsy, though art such a sensitive fighter, I knew one other,
The Count de Yellowstreak, with whom I had the opportunity to play at
cards one evening. He then, as you often do, spoke of some debauchery
instead. I of course whipped the sissy to his knees at that point!
Yes, a Shahcom board would be great, send one at your earliest
convenience with your attorney's letter of apology to me. I intend to
start a museum of Chess Oddities, of which I am currently buying
Whitaker's criminal files (but unfortunately got Johnny's instead of
Norman's - darn that Mrs. Beasly!) and Hitler's chess set (it contained
only Aryan men and white always won). But the Shahcom board will secure
a special place, probably next to Alekhine's preserved penis, which
must be rolled out to be appreciated. Do you know the place of
Capablanca's grave? It was said that, despite his good looks and appeal
to women, his penis was smaller than the average Cornishman's,
requiring a set of tweezers to measure properly.
Of course, both you and Nick will have trouble figuring out how I spoof
using the AOL address and IP, since I do not have a valid AOL account.
If you don't believe me, try sending a quick test message to the
address. There is no such email address.... or if there now is, it
ain't me...
Taylor Kingston
jame...@aol.com wrote:
> PS - It is without irony that "Neil Innes" is listed as one of the
> eccentrics in Wikipedia? Will there soon be an entry on Neil Brennen as
> a "famous prankster" with Philsy as his noted protagonist? Could Phil
> stand being No.2? Wait, he already is, at least cranially...
Tempting (or perhaps appalling) though it might be think of Neil
Innes as some sort of bizarre hybrid of Neil Brennen and Phil Innes, he
is in fact a fairly well known musician -- member of the Bonzo Dog Band
in the 1960s, later frequently collaborating with the Monty Python
group. Appeared in "Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail" (Robin's minstrel,
chanting monk), wrote and performed all the songs for the hilarious
Beatles spoof "The Rutles."
Hey, I wonder if the mysterious backwards portion of "I Am the
Waitress" on the Rutles' album "Tragical History Tour" has the proof
that Phil's been promising for months but never delivering. It sounds
something like "Stay calm, there's no eager boot in Sid," but maybe if
it were reversed it would say "Yuri Averbakh was head of the KGB"?
knucmo
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
> True, which brings into question the whole Wikipedia methodology.
>Unlike, say, World Book or Britannica, there seems to be no competent
>editorial control nor any guarantee that the contributors are either
>neutral or knowledgeable. An encyclopedia to which anyone can
>contribute can't be taken seriously.
As a Wikipedian I object to this denunciation. Strict guidelines are
enforced for factual accuracy, a neutral point of view, and all
articles should be free of tendencious remarks. As a result, any of
those that are in contravention of these rules are listed for
discussion to amend any violations of any variety.
Schlomo Mangus
point of view, and all
> articles should be free of tendencious remarks. As a result, any of those
that are in contravention of these rules are listed for discussion to amend
any violations of any variety.>
An Encyclopedia by Committee. Sounds like Public Education, and what a fraud
that is. The entries to Wikipedia are full of errors, factual mistakes, and
outright lies. Unless someone objects strongly and then the topic gets
opened to "amendments;" the first clown that writes about any topic becomes
the Ultimate Authority on the subject.
Wikipedia is just another website churning money from advertising hits that
it gets from visitors and the geeks that spend their time on it imagining
that their pronouncements have any merit, scholarly value, or credibility.
Wikipedia is the most cynical and sarcastic example of Capitalism: The
Prositution of Knowledge. Wikipedia is the Porn Site for Geeks.
All anyone needs to know about the value of Wikipedia is the fact that the
same human excrements that post to the newsgroups are the ones authoring the
Wikipedia.
knucmo
<schlom...@wikimickey.com> wrote:
>An Encyclopedia by Committee. Sounds like Public Education, and what a fraud
>that is. The entries to Wikipedia are full of errors, factual mistakes, and
>outright lies.
Since the accusation has been stated, give some examples. Since there
are errors on Wikipedia, there are maintenance departments to correct
these abberations and erratums.
> Unless someone objects strongly and then the topic gets
>opened to "amendments;" the first clown that writes about any topic becomes
>the Ultimate Authority on the subject.
This is utterly spurious. All of the wikipedians I have spoken to,
none pronounce themselves a bona-fide expert even on things they are
qualified to pronounce such statements. Several Wikipedians who write
on subjects have either PhD's, have taught or lectured on their topic.
Still, these writers retain humility.
>Wikipedia is just another website churning money from advertising hits
Incorrect. Wikipedia is funded by donation and fund drives.
> that
>it gets from visitors and the geeks that spend their time on it imagining
>that their pronouncements have any merit, scholarly value, or credibility.
>Wikipedia is the most cynical and sarcastic example of Capitalism: The
>Prositution of Knowledge. Wikipedia is the Porn Site for Geeks.
Utilising one's personal bias against a project which aims to
disseminate information is not a valid criticism. Furthermore the
generalisation as all Wikipedians as being geeks (another stupid
category), or indeed all PC users as geeks is a feeble attempt at
criticism.
>All anyone needs to know about the value of Wikipedia is the fact that the
>same human excrements that post to the newsgroups are the ones authoring the
>Wikipedia.
This post of yours is nothing but FUD directed at free software.
Deliberately impressive rhetoric and slogans with no grounding in
reality. Perhaps you had better let Wikipedians be more cavillous
about their encyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Evaluations
Madcatz Controllers
departments to correct
> these abberations and erratums.>
Meanwhile, the erroneous information is ONLINE and misleading anyone that
relies on it.
>>>All of the wikipedians I have spoken to, none pronounce themselves a
bona-fide expert even on things they are qualified to pronounce such
statements. >>
Exactly. There are NO EXPERTS in any field dedicating their time to the
festering turd known as Wikipedia. It is the Encyclopedia for idiots and by
idiots. If you want to learn what Sam Sloan thinks about Volcanoes, check
Wikipedia. It will be posted as facts, and it will be up to the readers to
figure out if the information is accurate or not and then a Committee will
look into the matter if enough people complain.
Wikipedia is a great example of everything that is wrong with the current
politically correct Western Society. When the "average-slob-off-the-streets"
is writing the Encyclopedias, it is a good sign that Western Culture has hit
the wall and is rapidly deteriorating.
Bruce Leverett
Madcatz Controllers wrote:
> Wikipedia is a great example of everything that is wrong with the current
> politically correct Western Society. When the "average-slob-off-the-streets"
> is writing the Encyclopedias, it is a good sign that Western Culture has hit
> the wall and is rapidly deteriorating.
That's what we needed, a lecture on credibility and the decline of
Western Civilization, from the anonymous Mr. BellSouth.net.
Or should I say "the queen of BellSouth.net". Under his pseudonym
"Fran Drecker" and others, he likes to discuss any and every kind of
sexual activity, and is particularly aroused by the current president
of the USCF. Hell hath no fury, etc.
Fugatzo
decline of
> Western Civilization, from the anonymous Mr. BellSouth.net.
>
Wikkipedia. That should tell you why I don't trust it.
knucmo
<Contr...@madcatz.com> wrote:
>Exactly. There are NO EXPERTS in any field dedicating their time to the
>festering turd known as Wikipedia. It is the Encyclopedia for idiots and by
>idiots. If you want to learn what Sam Sloan thinks about Volcanoes, check
>Wikipedia. It will be posted as facts, and it will be up to the readers to
>figure out if the information is accurate or not and then a Committee will
>look into the matter if enough people complain.
This is simply rubbish. These aspersive slants denote clear FUDism.
>Wikipedia is a great example of everything that is wrong with the current
>politically correct Western Society. When the "average-slob-off-the-streets"
>is writing the Encyclopedias, it is a good sign that Western Culture has hit
>the wall and is rapidly deteriorating.
So free software is also a symptom of the decline of Western society?
Furthermore, you can't say to me without laughing that the
Encyclopedia Brittanica is 100% accurate, or sometimes even objective.
Continuing the hyperbolical rhetoric forwarded by Schlomo, you decree
that Wikipedia is a symptom of an apparent decline in Western culture.
I have never heard more ridiculous declarations in my life. Besides
which, I don't know many Wikipedians who go into computer cafes to do
their editing.
Taylor Kingston
knucmo wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:50:05 -0400, "Schlomo Mangus"
> <schlom...@wikimickey.com> wrote:
>
> >An Encyclopedia by Committee. Sounds like Public Education, and what a fraud
> >that is. The entries to Wikipedia are full of errors, factual mistakes, and
> >outright lies.
Dear knucmo, I would not take "schlomomangus" seriously. A Google
search shows him to be a foul-mouthed troll using an alias created
yesterday. He is probably the same person as several other boorish
anonymice seen here recently.
> Since the accusation has been stated, give some examples.
Still, crude-spoken though Schlomo is, he does have a point. In a few
minutes of looking at various chess-related entries on Wikipedia, I
found a number of questionable statements:
>From the entry on Anatoly Karpov:
"After Kasparov suddenly won Game 47 and 48, Karpov suffered a mental
and physical breakdown ..." -- Eh? Says who?
Alekhine:
"In 1927 he won the title of World chess champion from Capablanca;
subsequently, he refused to grant Capablanca the rematch that was one
of the conditions of their match." -- I know of no no contractual
requirement regarding a rematch. I do not recall any being mentioned
either in Skinner & Verhoeven's massive book on Alekhine, nor in
Winter's "Capablanca."
"In 1914, after playing a tournament in Saint Petersburg, Alekhine
became one of the five original grandmasters of chess (the others being
Lasker, Capablanca, Tarrasch and Marshall)." -- The factual basis for
this story has proven elusive. It might be better to regard it as
apocryphal until some evidence is found.
"He even succeeded in having Capablanca banned from the same
tournaments." -- There was no "ban." If Capablanca was invited to the
same tournament, Alekhine would insist on more money, or simply refuse
to play.
"In 1935 he lost the title to Max Euwe, a loss that is often
attributed to Alekhine's alcohol abuse." -- One of the myths about this
match. The fact is, Euwe played better.
Capablanca:
"In 1937, Euwe, unlike Alekhine with respect to Capablanca, fulfilled
his obligation to allow Alekhine a return match." -- Again, to my
knowledge, Alekhine was never under any contractual obligation to give
Capablanca a return match.
"In his entire chess career, Capablanca suffered fewer than fifty
losses in serious games." -- True, but a rather odd way to put it. Capa
had 37 losses.
Keres:
"It was supposed that the winner of this tournament [i.e. AVRO 1938]
would be the challenger for the World champion title, but the outbreak
of the Second World War brought negotiations with the current champion,
Alekhine, to an end." -- Not true. During the war Alekhine offered
Keres a match, but Keres declined.
"Upon the Soviet invasion of Estonia in 1944 his attempt to flee the
country failed ..." -- A bit misleading. Keres was already out of
Estonia, in Sweden, as the Red Army approached, and voluntarily went
back to Estonia for the sake of his family. A later attempt to flee was
planned, but the promised boats never arrived.
Bronstein:
"This period saw a meteoric rise in Bronstein's development as he
prepared for the first official world title challenge match, in 1951."
Eh? There had been world title matches going back at least to 1886.
I saw no serious flaws in the entry on Emanuel Lasker, but that was
because it's so skimpy that it might as well not have been written at
all.
While I don't agree with Schlomo's arrogant dismissal of Wikipedia, I
can't give it anywhere near the same level of trust as a proper
encyclopedia written by competent authorities.
knucmo
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
Thank you Taylor, I'll get round to correcting these mistakes.
knucmo
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
>knucmo wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:50:05 -0400, "Schlomo Mangus"
>> <schlom...@wikimickey.com> wrote:
>>
>> >An Encyclopedia by Committee. Sounds like Public Education, and what a fraud
>> >that is. The entries to Wikipedia are full of errors, factual mistakes, and
>> >outright lies.
>
> Dear knucmo, I would not take "schlomomangus" seriously. A Google
>search shows him to be a foul-mouthed troll using an alias created
>yesterday. He is probably the same person as several other boorish
>anonymice seen here recently.
>
>> Since the accusation has been stated, give some examples.
>
> Still, crude-spoken though Schlomo is, he does have a point. In a few
>minutes of looking at various chess-related entries on Wikipedia, I
>found a number of questionable statements:
>
>>From the entry on Anatoly Karpov:
> "After Kasparov suddenly won Game 47 and 48, Karpov suffered a mental
>and physical breakdown ..." -- Eh? Says who?
This is a featured article. Can I ask, did he lose a lot of weight,
and the match postponed as a result?
>Alekhine:
> "In 1927 he won the title of World chess champion from Capablanca;
>subsequently, he refused to grant Capablanca the rematch that was one
>of the conditions of their match." -- I know of no no contractual
>requirement regarding a rematch. I do not recall any being mentioned
>either in Skinner & Verhoeven's massive book on Alekhine, nor in
>Winter's "Capablanca."
> "In 1914, after playing a tournament in Saint Petersburg, Alekhine
>became one of the five original grandmasters of chess (the others being
>Lasker, Capablanca, Tarrasch and Marshall)." -- The factual basis for
>this story has proven elusive. It might be better to regard it as
>apocryphal until some evidence is found.
> "He even succeeded in having Capablanca banned from the same
>tournaments." -- There was no "ban." If Capablanca was invited to the
>same tournament, Alekhine would insist on more money, or simply refuse
>to play.
> "In 1935 he lost the title to Max Euwe, a loss that is often
>attributed to Alekhine's alcohol abuse." -- One of the myths about this
>match. The fact is, Euwe played better.
Well it does say that it is attributed to alcohol abuse, not that it
actually was alcohol abuse. I suppose it is just ambivalently
written.
>Capablanca:
> "In 1937, Euwe, unlike Alekhine with respect to Capablanca, fulfilled
>his obligation to allow Alekhine a return match." -- Again, to my
>knowledge, Alekhine was never under any contractual obligation to give
>Capablanca a return match.
> "In his entire chess career, Capablanca suffered fewer than fifty
>losses in serious games." -- True, but a rather odd way to put it. Capa
>had 37 losses.
>Keres:
> "It was supposed that the winner of this tournament [i.e. AVRO 1938]
>would be the challenger for the World champion title, but the outbreak
>of the Second World War brought negotiations with the current champion,
>Alekhine, to an end." -- Not true. During the war Alekhine offered
>Keres a match, but Keres declined.
> "Upon the Soviet invasion of Estonia in 1944 his attempt to flee the
>country failed ..." -- A bit misleading. Keres was already out of
>Estonia, in Sweden, as the Red Army approached, and voluntarily went
>back to Estonia for the sake of his family. A later attempt to flee was
>planned, but the promised boats never arrived.
>
>Bronstein:
> "This period saw a meteoric rise in Bronstein's development as he
>prepared for the first official world title challenge match, in 1951."
>Eh? There had been world title matches going back at least to 1886.
I noticed this one.
> I saw no serious flaws in the entry on Emanuel Lasker, but that was
>because it's so skimpy that it might as well not have been written at
>all.
> While I don't agree with Schlomo's arrogant dismissal of Wikipedia, I
>can't give it anywhere near the same level of trust as a proper
>encyclopedia written by competent authorities.
Well, keep the faith.
Taylor Kingston
knucmo wrote:
> >>From the entry on Anatoly Karpov:
> > "After Kasparov suddenly won Game 47 and 48, Karpov suffered a mental
> >and physical breakdown ..." -- Eh? Says who?
>
> This is a featured article. Can I ask, did he lose a lot of weight,
> and the match postponed as a result?
I believe Karpov did lose weight during the match; probably Kasparov
did too. However, the claim that "Karpov suffered a mental and physical
breakdown" is something I've seen nowhere but the Wikipedia article.
The termination of the 1984-85 K-K match is one of the more mysterious
and controversial episodes in recent chess history, and even now the
full story is not known. At the time journalists, for the most part,
accepted Kasparov's self-serving explanations, but on close examination
the statements by him and his associate Raymond Keene are found to be
rife with error, obfuscation and self-contradiction.
I would suggest reading Edward Winter's "Chess Explorations" pp.
220-226, and "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" pp. 172-179, to gain some
understanding of the bewildering swarm of claims, charges and
countercharges involved in the K-K termination.
I certainly do not claim to know the real reasons, in full, behind
Campomanes' decision to cancel the match. But I doubt Karpov's weight
loss was a major factor.
> >Alekhine:
> > "In 1935 he lost the title to Max Euwe, a loss that is often
> >attributed to Alekhine's alcohol abuse." -- One of the myths about this
> >match. The fact is, Euwe played better.
>
> Well it does say that it is attributed to alcohol abuse, not that it
> actually was alcohol abuse. I suppose it is just ambivalently
> written.
Generally, I don't think an encyclopedia should use hearsay to
explain the cause of an event. It used to be that when ships did not
return, it was often attributed to their falling off the edge of the
earth.
And the bit about Alekhine having a contractual obligation to give
Capablanca a rematch is just plain wrong, AFAIK. Some felt he had a
moral or sporting obligation, but I don't think any such thing is to be
found in the written contract. However, it is in Alekhine-Euwe
contract.
> Well, keep the faith.
Good luck, keep on trying. The litany of howlers posted by Mr. Gordon
in this thread at least puts Wikipedia's less serious errors in
perspective.
jame...@aol.com
>because it's so skimpy that it might as well not have been >written at all.
Which, considering Lasker made serious contributions to areas other
than chess, is probably more evidence of a gap.
The Historian
Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> While I don't agree with Schlomo's arrogant dismissal of Wikipedia, I
> can't give it anywhere near the same level of trust as a proper
> encyclopedia written by competent authorities.
Another Wikipedia oddity, first posted on the
rec.music.classical.recordings:
"...At some genre concerts such as folk and classical music
crowdsurfing is
unheard of because the audience will not generate enough energy to be
able
to hold up an audience member, and also because these concerts are more
usually seated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C rowd_surfing
knucmo
wrote:
>
Its not necessarily untrue, but definitely an oddity!
Sam Sloan
service??
Sam Sloan
On 4 Aug 2005 15:56:03 -0700, "The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>> I am intrigued by the potential of
>> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
>> for locating false posters.
>>
>> For example, yesterday I was able to use this service to establish
>> that Neil Brennen had posted a fake anonymous biography of me.
>
>Where was this "fake anonymous" biography posted? And more importantly,
>under what screen name? I've been using "The Historian" as a handle for
>a few months now.
Sure. You posted it right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Sloan&diff=20153100&oldid=20103784
Note your ID 68.84.120.191
You did not use a screen name.
You then reposted what you wrote to this group under Re: Salamalaikum
from kalash velley Chitral and added the comment
"Did Sloan write this? It sounds like someone is mocking him."
All and all a typical sneaky and despicable act, so characteristic of
Neil Brennen.
Sam Sloan
politi...@gmail.com
achieve NPOV. (Even if Sloan lost *all* his other court cases, which I
frankly find hard to believe, it's not balanced to use that fact to
denigrate the stellar accomplishment of a pro se USSC victory.)
But these are matters of tone subject to editorial amendment. Writing
is a process. POV aside, don't Brennan's revisions, taken as a whole,
actually improve the accuracy of the article?
politi...@gmail.com
"except two felonies."
The Historian
I thought it an apt description of Sloan's 'I can READ!' prose style.
and the other revisions fail to
> achieve NPOV. (Even if Sloan lost *all* his other court cases, which I
> frankly find hard to believe,
Why is that hard to believe?
it's not balanced to use that fact to
> denigrate the stellar accomplishment of a pro se USSC victory.)
Comparisons to stopped clocks and blind squirrels come to mind.
> But these are matters of tone subject to editorial amendment. Writing
> is a process. POV aside, don't Brennan's (sic)
Brennen's
revisions, taken as a whole,
> actually improve the accuracy of the article?
Yes.
The Historian
politi...@gmail.com wrote:
> At least one factual error in Brennen's version: "except a felony" s/b
> "except two felonies."
Thank you for the correction.
Catalan
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:430be00e...@ca.news.verio.net...
>
> Could anybody provide a list of websites that can perform this
> service??
Everybody knows you can just do a Google search and come up with a gazillion
of them.
Catalan
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124852946.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I think "semiliterate" is a low blow, and the other revisions fail to
> achieve NPOV. (Even if Sloan lost *all* his other court cases, which I
> frankly find hard to believe, it's not balanced to use that fact to
> denigrate the stellar accomplishment of a pro se USSC victory.)
Everybody knows that of all his filings he has only won one case.
politi...@gmail.com
You can note the problem in talk & hope s/o fixes it (vita brevis) - at
least the casual reader will be tipped off to the problem.
There are many bad wiki entries: the insignificant gets too much
attention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zord and the significant gets
short shrift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Paul_Schreber . (I
wonder whether Schreber saw megazords.)
But there are many solid articles and a few wonderful ones. Millions
didn't get to see the rough draft of the 11th ed. of the E.B.
Chess One
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Sloan&diff=20153100&oldid=20103784
>
> Note your ID 68.84.120.191
>
> You did not use a screen name.
>
> You then reposted what you wrote to this group under Re: Salamalaikum
> from kalash velley Chitral and added the comment
>
> "Did Sloan write this? It sounds like someone is mocking him."
>
> All and all a typical sneaky and despicable act, so characteristic of
> Neil Brennen.
He posts trash about people then accuses them of writing it about
themselves. Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
knucmo
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>> Well, keep the faith.
>
> Good luck, keep on trying. The litany of howlers posted by Mr. Gordon
>in this thread at least puts Wikipedia's less serious errors in
>perspective.
I just noticed some more errors on the Karpov article (a featured
article nonetheless!) :
1. Says that Korchnoi offered to play under the flag of the Jolly
Roger after being declined by Switzerland. That is what it says on
Wikipedia, when I reckon it to be Stean and Keene persuading Korchnoi
to play under the flag after being declined by Netherlands (he hadn't
lived there long enough).
2. Korchnoi wearing glasses to ward off the hypnotic stare of Zukhar -
No, I believe Viktor wore these strange shades because of Karpov's
habit of staring at him, which irritated him in the 1974 match.
Taylor Kingston
> I just noticed some more errors on the Karpov article (a featured
> article nonetheless!) :
>
> 1. Says that Korchnoi offered to play under the flag of the Jolly
> Roger after being declined by Switzerland. That is what it says on
> Wikipedia, when I reckon it to be Stean and Keene persuading Korchnoi
> to play under the flag after being declined by Netherlands (he hadn't
> lived there long enough).
Skimming through "Persona Non Grata" (aka "Anti-Chess") by Kortchnoi
and Cavallaro, I did not find anything about the Jolly Roger, but page
27 indicates it was the Swiss flag that the Soviets objected to, not
the Dutch, on grounds that Kortchnoi had not lived in Switzerland a
full year yet.
> 2. Korchnoi wearing glasses to ward off the hypnotic stare of Zukhar -
> No, I believe Viktor wore these strange shades because of Karpov's
> habit of staring at him, which irritated him in the 1974 match.
That appears to be correct. From pages 53-54: "A footnote is in order
about Kortchnoi's glasses. Ever since the first round, he had been
wearing glasses with one-way mirror reflection while playing. 'I don't
know who determined that I was protecting myself from the harmful
influence of the Soviet psychologist [Zukhar] like this -- the glasses
probably bothered Zukhar, and the Soviets thought up this version
themselves. But, I repeat, I had been wearing them in the early games
when ... Zukhar, like a secret, up-to-date Katyusha, was still being
held in reserve ... The purpose of the glasses was to deprive Karpov of
his favorite tactic -- standing over the table and staring at his
opponent. While I was wearing the glasses, he could engage only in
narcissism.'"
parrt...@cs.com
>He posts trash about people then accuses them of writing it about themselves.>
Phil Innes
Dear Phil,
You are making a very serious accusation against Neil Brennen.
To wit: you are saying that he posted trash that some might
think came from Sam Sloan and then returned in his actual person to ask
whether the stuff came from Mr. Sloan.
Frankly, that goes beyond sneaky; it puts a person beyond the pale.
If your charge is true, then other little shrouded mysteries around
here may begin to lift. The issue is whether your charge is true.
I await Mr. Brennen's response and, perhaps we both hope, his
outright denial.
One doesn't want to think that kind of slime is true about someone
who, after all, entertains many of the same interests and concerns as
we do.
The Historian
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> A SERIOUS ACCUSATION
>
> >He posts trash about people then accuses them of writing it about themselves.>
> Phil Innes
>
>
> Dear Phil,
>
> You are making a very serious accusation against Neil Brennen.
>
> To wit: you are saying that he posted trash that some might
> think came from Sam Sloan and then returned in his actual person to ask
> whether the stuff came from Mr. Sloan.
>
> Frankly, that goes beyond sneaky; it puts a person beyond the pale.
>
> If your charge is true, then other little shrouded mysteries around
> here may begin to lift. The issue is whether your charge is true.
>
> I await Mr. Brennen's response and, perhaps we both hope, his
> outright denial.
Larry, I've gotten used to Philth Innes manufacturing all kinds of
trash about me. This latest is just another junker coming off his
Brattleboro assembly line. It deserves as much contempt as all the
others before it.
Since Philth will no doubt rant the above is not an answer to you, here
it is again, worded a little more directly: I did not do what you
interpret Innes as claiming I did.
The Historian
Example?
Goran Tomic
news:1124969226.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
False posts about chess players using false nickname. they named you Vandal.
You already forgot it?
Mike Murray
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>knucmo wrote:
>> I just noticed some more errors on the Karpov article (a featured
>> article nonetheless!) :
>> 1. Says that Korchnoi offered to play under the flag of the Jolly
>> Roger after being declined by Switzerland. That is what it says on
>> Wikipedia, when I reckon it to be Stean and Keene persuading Korchnoi
>> to play under the flag after being declined by Netherlands (he hadn't
>> lived there long enough).
> Skimming through "Persona Non Grata" (aka "Anti-Chess") by Kortchnoi
>and Cavallaro, I did not find anything about the Jolly Roger, but page
>27 indicates it was the Swiss flag that the Soviets objected to, not
>the Dutch, on grounds that Kortchnoi had not lived in Switzerland a
>full year yet.
I remember reading that he made this offer in what seemed to me to be
a sarcastic vein. Unfortunately, I read it a long time ago and can't
remember where.
Sam Sloan
simply posted corrections.
That is the strength of Wikipedia. Errors can be noticed and corrected
immediately, unlike in a traditional encyclopedia like Encyclopedia
Britannica where errors stay there for time eternity.
In the Bobby Fischer article, it stated that by winning the 1956 US
Junior Championship, Fischer qualified to the US Championship. That
was untrue of course and I removed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer
On- the other hand, an administrator of Wikipedia removed one of the
changes I made. The article stated:
"Fischer spent much time at Collins's house, and some have
described Collins as a father figure for Fischer. However, Fischer was
already stronger than Collins when they first met, so it is unlikely
that Collins ever taught him anything about chess."
I wrote he second sentence but not the first. That was removed on the
grounds of "needs a source".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Fischer&action=history
However, I am the source. I know Fischer and I know that Fischer says
that Collins never taught him anything. Fischer first met Collins in
June 1956. Fischer was already a master and was stronger than Collins.
Fischer won the US Junior Chess Championship one month later.
After Fischer objected to the book "My Seven Prodigies" in which
Collins implied that he had been one of Bobby's teachers, Colins never
again claimed that he had taught Fischer anything.
Sam Sloan
Gambit
> I wrote he second sentence but not the first. That was removed on the
> grounds of "needs a source".
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Fischer&action=history
>
> However, I am the source. I know Fischer and I know that Fischer says
> that Collins never taught him anything. Fischer first met Collins in
> June 1956. Fischer was already a master and was stronger than Collins.
> Fischer won the US Junior Chess Championship one month later.
Yes, of course you're the source. Why wouldn't they believe you?
Everyone knows Sam Sloan sports an umblemished record of staunch
journalistic integrity -- why wouldn't they just take his word for it?
But then, maybe Peter Leko works for them.