Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 17:38:37 -0800):
Why should I be surprised that Louis Blair has
practised more of his disingenuous snipping?
...
[Louis Blair's version of what I wrote:]
"the inappropriate nature of ...
'European chess'."
...
I wrote: "... the inappropriate nature of
*Louis Blair's preferred term* 'European
chess' ".
_
By deliberately snipping that part of what
I wrote, Louis Blair has distorted my meaning.
_
I wrote (2 Feb 2006 19:10:12 -0800):
In what way? Does Nick deny that he
regards "European chess" as an inappropriate
term? As far as I can tell, the only thing that
I did was remove Nick's obviously false claim
that "European chess" is my preferred term.
I did this without comment in the hope that
he would reconsider his nonsense without
it being necessary for me to bluntly point
it out to him publicly. I should have known
better. So let me now bluntly suggest that
he do a google search and discover for himself
how often I write "chess" and how often I
write "European chess". If, in the future,
Nick dishonestly persists in this nonsense,
I shall certainly feel free to continue to refrain
from reproducing every repetition by Nick of his
nonsense.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

In [Louis Blair's snipped version of what I wrote]
a reader might assume--wrongly--that I find
something inappropriate in 'European chess'
(chess) itself, for instance, as pertaining to
the rules of 'European chess' (chess).

_
In this exchange between me and Nick, there
has been no discussion of the merits of the
rules of the various versions of chess, and I
doubt very much that anyone has taken my
note as indicating that Nick made a comment
of that sort. Nevertheless, since Nick seems
concerned about the possibility, I shall, in
the future, endeavor to make sure that no
such misunderstanding takes place. Nick
is very much deluded if he imagines that I
had any intent to deceive people into believing
that he finds something inappropriate in any
one version of chess itself.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

... Louis Blair's continuing vehement advocacy
of the term 'European chess' ...

_
What is actually happening is that I am taking
the time to tell Nick what I think of some of
his arguments.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

evidently, Louis Blair regards the term
'European chess' as fully appropriate.

_
Nick uses "evidently" when he should really be
including a clause, "I have nothing resembling
a rational argument to justify ..."

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

I have written no claim that Louis Blair has
used the term 'European chess' more
frequently than the term 'chess' during
*all of Louis Blair's writing* in
rec.games.chess.* Can Louis Blair cite
any evidence where I have written such
a claim?

_
When Nick produces a quote of me indicating
that Nick wrote such a claim, I shall be happy
to answer his question.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

Again, my comment about "Louis Blair's
preferred term 'European chess'" was
meant to refer only to *Louis Blair's
choice* to use the term 'European
chess' in this context in this thread.

_
Instead of
_
"Louis Blair's preferred term"
_
Nick could have written
_
"the term Louis Blair chose to use
in one note"
_
in order to refer to that choice. In this thread,
Nick has referred to usage outside of this
thread.
_
"When will the USCF change its
magazine's name to 'European
Chess Life'?" - Nick (2 Feb 2006
17:38:37 -0800)
_
I see no way that a reader could know that
when Nick wrote, "Louis Blair's preferred term",
he was only referring to a choice that I made
in one note in this thread.

_
Starting with a quote of me,
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

If, in the future, Nick dishonestly persists in this
nonsense, I shall certainly feel free to continue
to refrain from reproducing every repetition by
Nick of his nonsense.

Louis Blair chooses to practise name-calling.

_
"... disingenuous ... disingenuous
... disingenuous ..." - Nick (2 Feb 2006
18:55:54 -0800)

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

A less prejudiced reader than Louis Blair may
have noticed that I have been careful enough to
express regret and to write corrections when I
have believed that I had not expressed myself
with sufficient clarity or factual accuracy.

_
I have no way of knowing what Nick believes.
I can only note a failure on Nick's part to express
regret over a lot of things that he should, in
my opinion, be regretting. (Many of his "seems"
and "evidently" statements, for example.)

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

As far as I can tell, Louis Blair apparently
has argued that his usage of 'European
chess' was necessary to avoid confusion
with, say, 'Chinese chess' (xiangqi).

_
Nick uses "apparently" when he should really be
including a clause, "I have nothing resembling
a rational argument to justify ..."

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

'European chess' may be perceived as having
the connotation that Europeans (or people of
European ancestry) claim 'ownership' of chess.

_
Nick may rest assured that if I ever choose to
use the term, "European chess" again, I shall
be sure to include a note indicating that the
usage is not intended to indicate that Europeans
have any right to claim ownership of chess.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

As I understand it, the USCF aims to promote
diversity by encouraging more participation in
chess by people in minority communities. I
would submit that terms such as 'European
chess' are not helpful to this aim.

_
I would submit that we have nothing to indicate
that my note did any damage to this aim.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

As far as I can tell, Louis Blair seems to take
exception to my view that the term 'European
chess' is inappropriate.

_
What is actually happening is that I am taking
the time to tell Nick what I think of some of
his arguments.