wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

People loathe Truong for the same reasons they loathe Evans, Keene,
Schiller, Parr... because all these people are openly critical of a
political class in chess who serve mostly themselves - indeed, on the
whole,
they only talk with each other - and from one administration to the next,
despite however much money is in the pot, nothing changes for the better.

As usual, a broad and false statement from Brattleboro's Nearly an IM
2450. By your logic, anyone

No Sir, I never wrote of 'anyone'. Neither is what you write to do with
logic. I wrote of people who could not address the issues, instead resented
that the issues existed, and those who raised them, then put their heads in
the sand and uttered muffled indistinct whining noises, a-la-Kingston.

"critical of a political class in chess"
would be tarred with the same brush, and yet neither IM Donaldson (a
real IM, by the way)

I am not an IM Neil - 25 years ago I played against people who were, and
better, and did rather well. I have got over my dissapointment - but never
really had the concinnity necessary to be in the first flite of chess. I am
glad of it!

nor GM Seirawan are so marked. So perhaps there's
another factor at work.

More likely, the reason people "loathe" the persons you name is that
they routinely engage in falsehood and distortion. Examples are
available on request.

How should you know of these things?

If what you know of chess is gained from these newsgroups, then you cannot
know much at all. If things here appear distorted, then they merely deviate
from indolent public opinion which has not informed it self. This is why I
wrote of people who have looked hard all their lives at poltical
manipulations - and are not just tossing off some nervous comments in public
to look as if they are in the swim.

and as a public figure Polgar must expect that such things
will be discussed;

Yes, I think there is an expectation - though that is not to say that
much
of these speculations are decent or honorable! And are usually a failure
to
get things in perspective - the relative weight of the life to the art,
and
also of public to private affairs.

This is resolved in the speculator, rather than elsewhere, since if
writers
do not display some adequate level of human understanding, then such
'expectation' can have little of value, [can it?] other than to distort
how
things actually are.

Then Zsuzsa Polgar should know that Steven B Dowd
apparently feels entitled to unleash his conjectures
about her personal life, if not also his conjectures
about her state of mind.

Although not a specific to Dowd, I think her opinion of many such
newsgroup
'expectations' is, quote, 'vile'.

For myself, I think some of this has to do with celebrity and some to do
with gender. Clearly women in American society suffer more unwelcome and
unwonted attention than men, but the larger fact may be an overemphasis
on
status, and people here obsess about that.

Psychologically, the mechanism is very similar if you either like or
dislike
some fixation - what becomes disturbed is a proportion of things, with
some
part inflated so that it occupies more space than is warranted [ 'a
glamour' ] while other parts are diminished or absented entirely ['a
repression' ].

An interesting way to explore this is to attempt to talk about yourself!
How
honestly could you exclaim on your own life, love, art, and their
inter-relation? How much of yourself is mysterious?!

Idiotically in this instance, Dr D can't even use his own name, or
personal
circumstance, and merely indicates his magnificance to us mortals, rather
than quite engaging with us with perspectives from his own life. These
vicarious excursions into the lives of others are become commonplace in
society and so in newsgroups too, but really are no more than an
inability
to make sense of one's own life and affairs, and a flight into a fantasy
about the lives of others.

whether it fits your narrow ethical and world view or not
is also irrelevant.

"I know from long experience that there is nothing
at all between Dr. (Steven B) Dowd's ears."
--Kenneth Sloan (14 June 2006)

Now go somewhere and proclaim someone "beyond disdain,"
one of your favorite hobbies.

To correct Steven B Dowd's distortion of *exactly* what
I have written, I have written that some writers in RGC*
'warrant no response beyond disdain', which pertains
to what they have written.

I extended Dr D an invitation to evaluate his own knowledge, indeed, so
that
his own disdain at other's could be placed into a perspective, and
thereby
he could gain some sense of proportion of the worth of other people to
exist?

A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he had read the Gulko MSS, but in
his response he eliminated even the question, while maintaining his
superiority over others by putting them down, absent any content.

Again, please present the post in which you "extended" this offer to
Dr. D.

You are such a reprobate that it would not matter if your received this
information or not - since you do not care for the subject under discussion,
that is Gulko's record - and when asked directly gave the Blairian response
that you had not committed yoruself either way.

What you neglect is the fact that without some attention on your own part to
these issues, then none will be paid to you.

What seems most 'disdained' beyond individual behaviors, is the worth of
knowledge and an insistent preference to speculations, which must be
termed
'idle' in the absense of real knowledge - and this is not just
information,
but material taken in as a human being, digested and matured by
reflection,
and so understood in that context.

Why anyone at all on this Planet should argue or behave as if they have
not
exactly the same circumstances of human evaluation as anyone else is a
neurotic activity. To indulge and persist in it is psychotic.

Snip remaining Innes nonsense.

Brennan thinks this is a provocation, but we know that what he snips is
always the most essential part of any post, and he snips it because it
answers the questions he asks - and then he says, where is... ?

Is this completely moronic behavior?

Should he ever be sincere, no doubt someone will attend to his every need,
but not me! The topic under discussion is not his obsession with stalking my
posts, nor his indolent and insincere questioning - it is what was contained
in Susan Polgar's Chesscafe message.

Phil Innes