Jr -- one of the dunderheads referred to below -- posted this:


* This is really odd. Keene & the dunderheads have
anaged to trick the so-called ratpackers into discussing
one of Keene's better works...* (Help Bot)

--

One can hardly expect a dunderhead like Jr to think or reason
correctly, but it should not be beyond his abilities to cut-and-paste
with reasonable competence.
Here is what I actually wrote:

"This is really odd. Keene & the dunderheads have managed to trick
the so-called ratpackers into discussing one of Keene's better works,
instead of focusing on the prior subject -- Keene's recent slop.
Slippery as an eel."

--

On second thought, cutting and pasting both require holding down the
control key with one (human) finger, while hitting "v" or "c" with
another -- and as one might expect, this is exceedingly difficult for a
parrot to accomplish. Sometimes my standards are simply too high. My
apologies, feathered one. You're doing quite well, considering....


Jr pecked out:

"This phony will never respond to Keene's devastating
critique of his putrid review because Keene is right."


In fact, while Keene ratpackers may seem to feel it is unfair to hold
their master to any standards of accountability while at the same time
demanding others answer their own "questions", most observers will find
that this sort of double-standard reveals a very deep-seated hypocrisy.

IMO, Keene was "right" in the sense that TK's frequent nastiness
revealed a bias which affected his assessment of one of Keene's better
books. It was the same sort of nastiness one can find in comments by
Edward Winter regarding anything Keene-related
The point of a book review ought to be to actually review the book in
question -- not to throw darts at the author for crimes committed in
his other works. Such comments could well be seperated and presented
(if necessary) in an editorial, in which the failings of many chess
authors are discussed in general. In such an editorial, Keene might be
lumped together with, say, Schiller, Soltis, Pandolfini, or even Al
Franken, and taken to task for all too often getting his dates and
spelling wrong. There simply isn't space in a decent book review for
this sort of thing.
A book review ought to focus on whether or not a given book is worthy
of purchase. Beyond this, it would be useful to compare the specific
work with its direct competition.
Is Keene's book better than others on Nimzowitch? What are the other
main choices here, and how do they compare overall to Keene's book?

-- help bot