ChessBanter - View Single Post

**Nick** · August 7th 06, 09:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc

wrote:
Nick wrote:

Again much of the context was snipped by Steven B Dowd.

*Again* Steven B Dowd has used the verb 'subventing'
(sic) rather than 'subverting', so I shall assume that he
has used it intentionally rather than as the consequence
of a typing error.

It isn't a fingerfehler, but it also isn't a spelling error.
I am visiting my mother and using my nephew's computer;
due to my bad eyes I missed my mistake twice.

se?

Or would it make more sense to infer that
Steven B Dowd was ignorant of the meaning of
'subventing' and confused it with 'subverting'?

The simplest explanation usually suffices.
My diabetes has wreaked havoc with my eyes,
and small things are often blurry.

You may not understand what it is like to have morals and beliefs that
cause you to have to stand by the courage of your convictions, Nick.

Steven B Dowd again has shown that his inappropriate
and offensive personal comments are not only directed
toward Zsuzsa Polgar.

How? I simply indicated you "may not" understand; no accusation of a
lack of morals or beliefs, simply a truism that today there are many
who don't stand up for their beliefs. You may or may not... there is no
need to try to fool readers by pretending my statement was stronger
than it really was.

Apparently, Steven B Dowd feels entitled to make about any
inappropriate statement that he pleases about me as long as
it includes a 'may not'. Would these be other examples?

"You may not understand that sexually abusing children
is wrong, Nick."

"You may not understand that genocide is wrong, Nick."

The people in my family have long abhorred informers
and collaborators. And we abhor those people who
collaborate with American racism and imperialism.

As does any intelligent human. But what
does your family have to do with it?

I have always loved Alekhine's play, but find it hard to study his games
after reading the articles he wrote for the German press. Once I saw
the clear evidence of what he did (the originals in his own
handwriting), it really sickened me.

So would Steven B Dowd listen to Richard Wagner's music?

You are correct in assuming I have given up listening to Wagner.

I did *not* assume that; I simply asked a question.

However I have always had a greater interest in other composers:
Beethoven, Mozart, Telemann, Bach.

But at my age it probably has as much to do that I am not so interested
in the Sturm und Drang found in Wagner; I listened to Quadrophenia by
the Who when young, and it got me through a hard time; now the voices
seem so harsh.

Contrary to Steven B Dowd's apparent implication,
I have written hardly anything about USCF politics,
which seems to be the context of his strong objection
to Zsuzsa Polgar's criticisms of Sam Sloan.

I cannot be rightfully accused of 'simply jump(ing)
in to stir the pot' (to quote Steven B Dowd) of USCF
politics when I have hardly any interest in USCF politics.

As you noted yourself earlier, your comments were directed
at my, and I believe primarily other's comments on Polgar.

Steven B Dowd's statement (above) reveals that he evidently
read that part of my earlier post that he previously chose to
snip, dismissing it as a 'boring diatribe' (Steven B Dowd's
usual misrepresentation) and claiming *not* to have been
interested in it.

Steven B Dowd's statement (above) is another distortion
by Steven B Dowd, who prefers to omit the fact that my
original criticism was directed toward the writers who have
made inappropriate comments about Zsuzsa Polgar's
*personal life*. *Her personal life*, get it?

I do *not* regard Zsuzsa Polgar as above criticism.
Indeed, I have criticised Zsuzsa Polgar for what she
(along with Jacob Shutzman) has written about
Nana Alexandria and Xie Jun in the book "Queen
of the Kings Game". But my criticisms of Zsuzsa
Polgar have been limited to some of what she, a
chess professional, has written or done in chess.

That's USCF politics, Nickie.

Evidently, Steven B Dowd regards his comments
about Zsuzsa Polgar's personal life to be a part
of USCF politics. I regard Zsuzsa Polgar's
personal life to be separate from USCF politics.

And you did jump in and stir the pot.

Anyone who has ignored Steven B Dowd's disingenuous
snipping and read completely what he and I have written
in this thread should be able to tell that I made a general
criticism of the writers (plural) who have made inappropriate
comments about Zsuzsa Polgar's personal life.
I did *not* mention any of those writers by name.

*Only* Steven B Dowd has responded with an
attempted self-justification, which has included
making many dishonest distortions of what I
have written, not to mention his usual offensive
personal comments toward me.

Evidently, Steven B Dowd prefers to persist in his
practice of attributing views to me that I have *not*
expressed and that I do *not* hold.

As do you. Pot. Kettle. Black.

That's Steven B Dowd's 'proof by assertion'.

You are probably correct in your assertion that
my stance does say much about me.

Contrary to Steven B Dowd's distortion, what I wrote
pertained to *all comments* by Steven B Dowd about
Zsuzsa Polgar's personal life rather than to *only*
Steven B Dowd's objection to Zsuzsa Polgar's
criticism of Sam Sloan's becoming a member
of the USCF Executive Board.

You must be exceptionally intelligent to have read all
my posts over the last 10 years. I applaud you for that.

Contrary to Steven B Dowd's distortion, I did *not* write
that I 'have read all of (his) posts over the last 10 years.'

Again, what I wrote pertained to "*all comments* (which
I have read so far) by Steven B Dowd about Zsuzsa
Polgar's *personal life*". Her *personal life*, get it?

Whether that is a positive or negative view
is yours to decide.

My point was the readers here deserve to know the
fact that Steven B Dowd has written that he has no
respect whatsoever for Zsuzsa Polgar 'as a person'.
Then the readers here can take that fact into account
when assessing whatever Steven B Dowd writes
about Zsuzsa Polgar.

Most readers here are educated enough and have enough experience
in the group to know my views. They don't need Big Brother Nick
telling them what to believe about me.

That's another distortion by Steven B Dowd.

I did *not* write (above) that what Steven B Dowd writes
about Zsuzsa Polgar is necessarily right or wrong.
(Perhaps Steven B Dowd might agree with my criticisms of
what Zsuzsa Polgar wrote in "Queen of the Kings Game".)

I did write that it's a fact that Steven B Dowd has written
that he has no respect whatsoever for Zsuzsa Polgar 'as
a person'. Readers have the right to take that fact into
consideration when assessing whatever Steven B Dowd
writes about Zsuzsa Polgar.

Does Steven B Dowd now seem less eager to have
readers know that he, in fact, has declared in public
that he has no respect whatsoever for Zsuzsa Polgar
'as a person'?

Of course, Steven B Dowd prefers to snip the evidence
that shows he's wrong.

Of course, the ploy of claiming that content was snipped, without
indicating what was snipped is a nice ploy you must have learned
from Phil.

Steven B Dowd has made a completely unjustified
claim that I have learned something from Phil Innes.

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

Steven B Dowd (2194 USCF) is rated much higher
than Kenneth Sloan (1760 USCF). I suppose that
Kenneth Sloan would concede that Steven B Dowd
is a stronger player of chess.

Given he could never even win a speed game from me,
he would probably have to.

As I understand it, however, Kenneth Sloan's
experienced judgement of Steven B Dowd applies
to some context(s) beyond playing chess.

I was simply expressing my interpretation of
what Kenneth Sloan's statement meant.

I suppose it could, but if you consider Kenneth Sloan a reliable
reference for anyone, you are being deluded. Why not let Sloan
elaborate himself and then you can decide whether such a statement was
made out of personal and professional jealousy or whether it is
warranted. You are quick to criticize others for making assumptions;
should this standard not also apply to the great Nick?

As far as I know, Kenneth Sloan and Steven B Dowd are
(or were) both professors at the University of Alabama.
I have *not* claimed to have any other knowledge of
the personal or professional relationships between
Kenneth Sloan and Steven B Dowd.

As far as I can recall of their posts in rec.games.chess.*,
Kenneth Sloan seems to be a less disingenuous writer
than Steven B Dowd.

--Nick