Chess One wrote:
Dear Steven, while we [plural!] hold you in our affections, what you write
is a continuous demonstration of what I say, which is of your effections.

Perhaps it is because I am such a pragmatist that I typically think, "if he
could, he would," but you evidently can't address whatever was in the Polgar
column, since it is your preference to write in hissy fits.

Love and Kisses, Phil.


Um, you can keep the kisses, and I will accept the loving in the most
generic of ways, but I do not see what I failed to address. My view is
simple on what she wrote in the column and her blog: I disagree totally
with her rants on Sam. He won, and it would seem to me that a person
with the power to do so many positive things for chess (and who has
done many positive things for chess) should stay away from this sort of
thing, and her recommending that we find some way to prevent him from
assuming office is wrong. Not only wrong, but it sends a signal
(however false) that she is the one who wants to have her way through
"hissy fits."

Does her association with Truong bother me? No, it is up to her to
decide, but by your standards, Truong really is someone who "can't be
bothered to sign his name" and in fact floods many discussion groups
with anonymous postings, and is an accused Internet chess cheater. As
an opportunist, he has done well for her but I can't help thinking he
will also be her undoing.

And of course this is a form of armchair quarterbacking I am engaged in
when I discuss these matters, as are 99% of the posts here. It is sheer
speculation. If you want real news on Polgar, I suggest sources like
chesscafe, where her column appeared. It does an excellent job of
covering topical material in an informative manner. It has the best
writers on chess of any site I have seen.

I fail to see how that or anything else I wrote is anything more of a
hissy fit than what you write here on a regular basis. When attacked,
you defend, as do I. Why is your defense supposedly superior to mine?

I consider myself a pragmatist as well, and in fact my master's work
was in part on Dewey and his philosophy of education; his "learning
lab" (learning through experimentation) ideas would fit well for chess
study if someone took up the notion.

However, I still think "on-topic" to you means "what I want (or is that
what we want?) to discuss." In fact, I always find it funny when you
accuse others of not discussing chess because your posts are often
without any relevant chess content whatsoever. In fact. except for
mentioning the name "Polgar," what does your post above have to do with
chess? Very little. It has more to do with me; and your accusations
that I don't post on chess and suffer from some sort of self-obsession,
well, here we go again: Pot, kettle, black.