wrote in message
ups.com...
BLAIR DENIES

Larry Parr wrote (17 Mar 2007 06:29:25 -0700):
[LouieBlair's] specialty is searching old messages
in the e-graveyard and ignoring those that he
wishes to ignore while posing as an honest broker....

ON PRE-DENIAL THEORY

Larry Parr, of course, gives no examples of me
"posing as an honest broker". I do not even know
what he means by such an expression. Until Larry
Parr explains himself on this point, I will content
myself with denying posing as something that I am not."


Its not denial yet, Larry Parr; as you can see from the following
excruciating dialog, its more to do with an absolute willingness not to
understand the expressions of others, as you note above. Pre-denial is the
preferred term of not-yet discriminating netocrats..

Dr. Blairs own terminology, is "no reason to see", and I think its fair to
take him at his word on this.

In a text which Dr. Blair thought fit to remove from the record below is his
own remarkable statement [this is after a good 20,000 words already!] and
follows Dr. B's statement that it was neither subjective nor objective
reaction to the content of the Wiki material, promting my question:-

***"it was not a critique of the biographies at all" SO WHAT WAS IT?
_
Consequently, my "help" was not an attempt to
address content, and did not pretend to address
content.

What a perfect stance for a moderator! Meanwhile 'content' as such, is
continuously addressed below as 'nonsense', no matter who says it.

The funny bit is that Sloan and Blair are equally stubborn, being both
all-or-nothing types, impervious to other's commentary, yet while Sloan is
censored at USCF forum, Blair 'explains' why he has no reason, &c at Sloan's
Fide group ))

//Phil Innes

-------
--- In ,
chesspride@... (Eric C. Johnson) wrote
(Thu March 15, 2007 8:06 pm):
7 ...
7 It is not very convincing.
_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:42 am):
7 It is not really my problem if the fantasy
7 of Eric C. Johnson is not very convincing.
7 ...
_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (March 16, 2007
7:21 am):
7 Like Eric, it has convinced /every/ other
7 reader so far, here and in rgcp, and
7 readers who do not frequently agree with
7 each other. I think Dr. B is in denial,
7 and the only person not convinced is
7 himself. ...
_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:24 pm)
7 It seems to me that, in his excitement, Phil
7 Innes has failed to clearly identify what all
7 these "readers" have been convinced to believe.
7 ...
_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (Sat March 17, 2007
12:46 pm):
7 The same 'fantasy' as is the topic we here
7 address - which is the degree of obfustification
7 on any subjct whatever to which Dr. Blair lends
7 his attention. Has Dr. Blair forgotten the topic
7 he now denies? Or is he just confused? ...
_
I wrote (Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:53 pm):
7 A number of assertions have been made by Phil
7 Innes and/or Eric C. Johnson and/or Sam Sloan in
7 this discussion. I am not sure which one or ones
7 (if any) Phil Innes has in mind when he refers to
7 some sort of supposed general agreement. ...

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 A number of observations have been made by
7 more than just those noticed above. Dr.
7 Blair continues to state that he 'is not
7 sure' what they are about.

_
No, I stated that I am not sure which assertion
or assertions (if any) Phil Innes has in mind
when he refers to some sort of supposed general
agreement.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 Whereas, the subject is the level of candid
7 reporting that Dr. Blair himself conducts

_
So, if I am following Phil Innes correctly, he
is not now claiming any general agreement about
something that is specific to the Wikipedia
incident. That is probably wise.

_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (Sat March 17, 2007
12:46 pm):
7 ... Dr. Blair will also not remember his
7 correspondance with Greg Kennedy [again 10%
7 agreeing with me] who also pointed out how
7 selective such 'objective' references actually
7 are ...
_
I wrote (Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:53 pm):
7 ... I assume that Phil Innes is referring to
7 some "help bot" notes that were posted awhile
7 ago, and, if so, I do indeed remember them and
7 Phil Innes fails in his attempt at prediction.
7 I see no justification for regarding those notes
7 as agreement with the Phil Innes, Eric C.
7 Johnson, or Sam Sloan comments about my
7 Wikipedia activity. ...

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 Ah! Well, I wonder if Dr. Blair remembers what
7 he himself wrote yesterday? That it was me alone
7 who thought his productions 'sophisticated'.

_
Actually, I do not remember writing such a
thing and Phil Innes does not seem to be very
eager to produce specific details about what
was written and where.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 How could Dr. Blair 'see' any justification
7 at all? - Johnson's writing is dismissed as
7 'fantasy',

_
Eric C. Johnson wrote about some speech of
an imaginary character, denying an intention
to tattle. Although the speech incorporated
some of my phrases, it was nevertheless a
fantasy, as I had not written anything about
the "tattletale" accusation. (In response, to
the Eric C. Johnson note, I DID address the
issue so that he could see the difference
between reality and the product of his
imagination.)

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 and help-bot/Kennedy is forgot, until
7 reminded of

_
Nonsense. All along, I have remembered the
"help bot" notes. I simply see no justification
for regarding those notes as agreement with the
Phil Innes, Eric C. Johnson, or Sam Sloan
comments about my Wikipedia activity.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 - Dr. Blair casts his own actions in terms
7 of what he choses 'to see'. Which is not much,
7 evidently. To the point was that Dr. Blair
7 took part in the 'Wikipedia-Action' but is
7 shy of any frank assessment of what he did as
7 others saw it.

_
Nonsense. I have quoted the assessments of Sam
Sloan, Eric C. Johnson, and Phil Innes many
times.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 As a moderator, he is an absolutist!

_
Nonsense. Phil Innes has no examples of me
acting as a moderator.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 - has shown not the slightest attempt to
7 even acknowledge other peoples comments to
7 moderate his own behavior. ROFL -

_
Nonsense. I have quoted the comments of Sam
Sloan, Eric C. Johnson, and Phil Innes many
times.

_
I wrote (Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:53 pm):
7 ...
7 ___"... My only contribution was the note
7 ___(sent to a number of Wikipedia
7 ___participants) that Sam Sloan himself
7 ___quoted on Tue March 13, 2007 3:06 pm.
7 ___It advocated no course of action."
7 ___- Louis Blair (Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:34 pm)
7
7 ___"... I think that it is appropriate to try
7 ___to help Wikipedia to be aware of what is
7 ___going on, ..." - Louis Blair (Thu
7 ___Mar 15, 2007 2:19 am)
7
7 For details on who acted to do what after
7 that point, I suggest that Phil Innes
7 consult Wikipedia records. He might start
7 with:
7
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
7 title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration
7 &oldid=115765976#Chess_biographies

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 The essential honesty of the [above quotes]
7 has already received a comment by Eric Johnson
7 - [bit of a sober one about AF].

_
Previously, I posted:
_
___"Aren't there easily-located Sam Sloan
___contributions at Wikipedia right now?
___How can that be true if they have had a
___prior policy of automatically deleting
___Sam Sloan contributions? ..." - Louis
___Blair (Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:10 am)
_
I invite Phil Innes to attempt to answer these
questions himself.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 Dr. Blair denies his actions were not a form
7 of advocacy.

_
My words should not be rewritten by Phil Innes.

_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (Sat March 17, 2007
12:46 pm):
7 ... You are saying that Wikipedia
7 adminsitrators would not have removed
7 Sloan's material unless you 'helped' and
7 they remove all the material as some
7 matter of policy? ...
_
I wrote (Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:53 pm):
7 No. I am not saying those things. If Phil
7 Innes wants to claim that those things are
7 true, it is up to him to provide the
7 justification. ...

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 I do not 'want to say them', I have said
7 them! Dr. Blair said in his own words said
7 he 'helped',

_
The phrase was: "try to help".

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 so what do people think he 'helped' to do?
7 If you help, you make a contribution to
7 something, no? Dr. Blair now wants me to
7 prove 'my claim' that this is so [?!] This
7 is mighty peculiar understanding from a
7 Moderator. ...

_
An attempt to help does not necessarily make
a difference. It could be that the Wikipedia
people would have found out Sam Sloan's
"reinstat"ing activities in some other way.
_
By the way, notice that Phil Innes quietly
forgets the other part of his question:
"they remove all the material as some matter
of policy". See above.



-----------...-----------

Louie Blair claims to know not the meaning of
"honest broker," though adding a mincing qualifier.
On the other hand, he denies being what he knows not,
though he is certain that he is not.

Such is our Louie. Screwy? He denies it until
he knows what may be meant by the word.




Louis Blair wrote:
Larry Parr wrote (17 Mar 2007 06:29:25 -0700):

7 ... [LouieBlair's] specialty is searching old messages
7 in the e-graveyard and ignoring those that he wishes
7 to ignore while posing as an honest broker. ...

_
Larry Parr, of course, gives no examples of me "posing
as an honest broker". I do not even know what he means
by such an expression. Until Larry Parr explains himself
on this point, I will content myself with denying posing
as something that I am not.