Rob wrote:
Larry Tapper wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
Rob wrote:
I call for the Chess Fachists to simply begin their own group and leave
the rest of us to think and breath free, unimcumbered under the iron fists
of their ridicule and persicutions for our opinions and ideas.

Rob, one of the distinguishing characteristics of fascism is that
under it, the publication of factual truth is suppressed in favor of
propaganda. Lies, half-truths, fabrications and slanders that serve the
interest of the ruling party are advanced at the expense of the
public's right to factual information.
Another typical fascist ploy is that normal definitions are stood on
their heads, e.g. "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is
strength" (Orwell). The way you use such terms as "free," "persicution"
[sic] and "iron fist" above indicates you may unwittingly be falling
into that manner of speech, something I'm sure you will want to avoid.


I dare say they know who they are and should they go unnamed? One is
the initiator of the "Pledge" against Mr. Inness.

Seriously, Rob, ask yourself: who here acts more like a fascist-style
propaganda ministry: Innes, Parr, Sloan et al, or those who try here to
counter their habitual falsehoods?

My feeling about this is that generally speaking, chessplayers make
terrible fascists, because they tend to be individualistic and
anti-authoritarian. This goes for Parr and Sloan, certainly, as well as
our alleged cabal of 'ratpackers'.


Anyway, it's hard to see what the point is of Rob's latest
instantiation of Godwin's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Yes. I am aware of Godwin's Law. A clever mind might acutally use
Godwin's law as attempt to hide their own inclinations towards facist
behaivor.

Rob,

Give us a couple of specific examples of what you consider to be
"fascist behavior" and then we'll have some idea of what you're talking
about, perhaps.

The question also arises whether accusing other posters of fascist
tendencies counts as acceptable behavior according to your own exalted
standards. Why is that not an example of "name calling", which you say
you deplore?

Larry T.

The more direct attitude is when someone attempts to silence
someone or to drive them from the group via personal attacks. Susan
Polgar stopped posting to this group due to just such attacks.

We can disagree. We can discuss. We can still remain professional and
cordial as well. The incessant name calling does nothing to
promote,advance or elevate chess in any way.

Rob

It's not as if anyone is advocating actually banning Phil Innes from
the group, let alone exterminating the guy. And if unpleasant,
repetitive badgering of a poster who gets one's goat looks like fascism
to Rob, we'd certainly have to put Larry Parr's 200+ posts about "NMNot
Kingston" in that category.

LT