David Richerby wrote:
Nick wrote:
David Richerby wrote (of Kalev Pehme):
Again, if the biggest deficit in his knowledge and competence
is that he occasionally uses the word `round' where `game'
would be more appropriate, I'd say he sounds like a pretty
good editor.

Has David Richerby read any issue(s) of 'Chess Life' edited
by Kalev Pehme or any article(s) written by him in it?

Has David Richerby read any of the threads in
rec.games.chess.politics in which Kalev Pehme's performance
as 'Chess Life' editor has been discussed at length, sometimes
with substantial amounts of 'Chess Life' text being quoted?

I have never, as far as I recall, read anything written or edited
by Kalev Pehme. As I have said on several occasions (at least one
of them recently, in response to a direct question from you), I do
not read rgcp.

Mr Richerby, I had thought it possible that at least some of those
threads that had begun in RGCP were eventually cross-posted to RGCM
and hence could have been read by you. (Perhaps I should have
written of 'the threads *begun* in rec.games.chess.politics'.)

However, I am aware that there has been a great deal of criticism
of Pehme's editorship. Some of this has been substantive; some of
it less so.

I could *not* have known that David Richerby was "aware that there
has been a great deal of criticism of Pehme's editorship".

If David Richerby had really believed that 'some of this (criticism)
has been substantive', then why did he write (above) his statement
that began with 'Again, *if* (my emphasis) the biggest deficit in
his knowledge and competence is that he occasionally uses the word
'round' where 'game' would be more appropriate...'? Why the 'if'?

Would not David Richerby have believed that there was *some*
'substantive' criticism of "Pehme's editorship", which *should*
have made it clear enough that the 'if' was unnecessary and there's
a "bigg(er) deficit in his (Pehme's) knowledge and competence"?

I write that (above) in order to explain why I wrote what I did
rather than to criticise David Richerby here.

However, the complaint upthread about the misuse of the words `round'
and `game' in an article and its picture captions has to be the most
trivial complaint I've ever seen whipped into a call for dismissal.

I doubt that Kalev Pehme was dismissed only on account of that.

Any kind of argument that Pehme is a bad editor is devalued by this
kind of thing. It's a tiny, almost insignificant, piece of evidence
of incompetance, not prima facie evidence of a capital crime.

I concur that it's 'not prima facie evidence of a capital crime'.

To his credit, David Richerby did make a qualification before
expressing his opinion that Kalev Pehme 'sounds like a pretty
good editor'.

Come on, Nick, you can read. I didn't express the opinion
that Kalev Pehme `sounds like a pretty good editor'.

It seems to me that David Richerby did express his opinion,
albeit his conditional opinion (I did note his 'qualification'),
when he wrote: "Again, if ...(a condition)..., I'd say he
(Kalev Pehme) sounds like a pretty good editor."

Mr Richerby, I *did* perceive your apparent opinion as a
conditional opinion, but a conditional opinion still seems
to be an opinion of some kind to me. Perhaps you disagree.
Please note that I wrote, "*To his credit*, David Richerby...",
which should have made it clear enough that I was not attempting
to misrepresent you in a bad way.

There was a conditional in there

I noticed that. Why else would I have written, '*To his credit*,
David Richerby *did make a qualification before* expressing his
opinion...'? Mr Richerby, would you have felt better if I had
written 'condition' rather than 'qualification'?

and it seems pretty clear to me that most of the people
I'm talking to believe its antecedent to be false.

Mr Richerby, I could *not* have known your state of mind when
you wrote your conditional statement (at the top of this post).
I could *not* have known that "it seems pretty clear to (you)
that most of the people (you're) talking to believes its
antecedent to be false" because *you wrote nothing* about
whom you were 'talking to' or what they believed.

For all that I knew at that time, you *could* have believed
the 'antecedent to be' true.

I've no idea if Pehme's a good editor or not,

Fair enough, Mr Richerby, given your state of knowledge.

though it's easy to form conclusions from the
near-universal negative opinion here.

As far as I can recall, it's *not* always been true that there
was 'near-universal negative opinion here' about Kalev Pehme
as the editor of 'Chess Life'. When the USCF Executive Board
hired him (about one year ago), Kalev Pehme seemed to begin by
enjoying the support (or at least the benevolent tolerance) of
the clear majority of 'Chess Life' readers in RGC*. Mr Pehme
clearly had the support of most of the USCF Executive Board.
Kalev Pehme's critics (who had questioned his apparent lack
of professional experience as an editor) were then in a small
minority. After the first few issues, as far as I could tell,
many of the previously vocal supporters of Kalev Pehme tended
to fall silent, and his critics became more numerous and vocal.
At some point, the consensus among the writers in RGCP seems
to have shifted to the belief that 'Chess Life' could (and
probably should) find a better editor. Perhaps for internal
USCF political reasons, some writers in RGCP apparently
continued to support Kalev Pehme up until his recent dismissal.

As far as I can recall, Kalev Pehme did *not* begin his tenure
as the editor of 'Chess Life' by facing 'near-universal negative
opinion here'. I suspect that Kalev Pehme's performance as that
editor had something to do with encouraging criticisms of him.

What I have written (above) is a politically disinterested
summary of events to the best of my recollection (without
checking the Google archives).

Mr Richerby, it's wise of you *not* to make the assumption
that "where there's smoke, there must be fire". The chess
newsgroups seem full of threads with contexts that go far
beyond those threads, and many writers here seem to have
motives that may not be obvious to an inexperienced reader.
When I began reading (Heaven knows why) the chess newsgroups,
I noticed many threads in which writers Alpha and Beta would
criticise each other (not to mention when Gamma and Delta
would join in) for no sufficient reasons apparent in that
thread alone. I prefer not to comment on what I have not
read, so I avoided jumping into the middle of those threads.

With more experience, I began to sort out the writers who
usually are honest from the writers who usually are dishonest.
As I look back on it now, my developing judgement of other
writers here has been generally sound but not perfect
(but the chess newsgroups tend to have a deeply pathological
'culture' for which most previous life experiences tend not
to be a useful preparation). I have made some good friends
and some bitter enemies (as you may have noticed), who love
to insult and to lie about me about as much as they can.
At times, it has seemed to me that you might have been
naive enough to believe some of those lies about me.

Dave, you and I may disagree on some issues from time to time.
That's only to be expected and should be no hindrance to a
civil, if not a cordial, relationship between us as writers.
My objections are directed toward the many trolls and liars
who infest the chess newsgroups. I expect that some of them
always will hate me because I have cited evidence to expose
their lies. I also expect to be hated here, as I have been
hated in real life, by some people on account of the perceived
colour of my skin. I doubt that reality will ever change.

"There is nothing in man that was not put into him when
he sprang from the reeds in the beginning."
--African saying (on the origins of rage)

--Nick