The Nutty Professor Tells More, well 'not' exactly ... ;(

7 And that is a position which empowers you
7 to audit the works of others - but of
7 yourself, you demonstrate here that you
7 can't even understand by way of
7 acknowledgement [nevermind be able to
7 discuss!] what others are saying - not
7 to the slightest degree.

_
I am acknowledging a Phil Innes note right
now, just as I have acknowledged many others
in this discussion.

**Dr Blair does not /acknowledge/ any criticism of what he did, not to the
the slightest degree, and his idea of 'noting' a subject it is to cite the
message, rather than address the issue it contains [!] ROFL!

**Which he continues to call 'nothing'. Truly, Dr. Blair not only has his
own agenda, he is demonstrably not capable of understanding, in any normal
sense of that word, what other people are saying.

**In case ANYONE should be confused about Dr. Blair's WIKI perspective he
thoughtfully amplifies his previous statement by saying it was also not an
'evaluation'.

_
___"My 'help' was neither an 'objective' nor
___a 'subjective' 'critique" of Sam Sloan's
___'biographies'. It was not a 'critique' of
___the 'biographies' at all." - Louis Blair
___(Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:53 pm)
_
It was not an "evaluation" either.

**Which seems to rule out the content of Sloan's expression. Let's STOP here
and just think what it actually was, therefore? Since my prediction of /not
not not/ in this header is the actual refuge Dr. Blair has taken. He doesn't
like any characterisation of what he does [BTW: not what he says he says],
and will tell you more about his nots:-

(a) he never said it himself, or
(b) he states he is unable to understand others, and disagrees with all
comment they make [ie, as 'nonsense']

His 'Action' to 'help' was related to 'the rules' of Wikipedia. tp 'make
Wiki aware' of something which he admits is not to do with content while his
action had the effect of eliminating that content.

While Dr. Blair has great difficulty in talking responsibility for his own
actions, his responses immediately justify what he did, rather than a civil
ability to even say that others have a problem with it. Other people's
observations he continuously declares to be 'nonsense'.

There is a certain psycho-pathology where people cannot seperate their
actions from being right or wrong to the extent that objections cannot even
be noted [!] and their views are dismissed out of hand. I would have thought
that a 'moderator' would have developed quite another sense of things, and
be able to distinguish a topic [whether agreeing with it or not] from
personality issues of who wrote the topic, and any immediate judgement of
that topic by some, in this case arcane, sequence of 'understanding' which
reduces all to 'nonsense'.

7 Dr. Blair can't even /acknowledge/ what
7 others say about what he does, without
7 immediately stating 'nonsense'!

_
I have acknowledged many things, written by
others, without "immediately stating
'nonsense'". Unfortuanately, there has been
a lot of nonsense written in this discussion,
so it is natural for the word to come up
repeatedly.

**Dr. Blair uses the word acknowledge to mean not-acknowledge in this case.
He /responds/ to the words of other people, but not what the words mean [!],
as if the words had no meaning to him at all, and because he didn't write
them, has no obligation to acknowledge they have meaning to others.

7 He will 'moderate' affairs at the USCF
7 forum, adding a new and absolute sense to
7 that word, which used to mean something
7 else.

_
A prediction that has not come true.

**An observation /demonstrated/ to be true right here and now. Dr. Blair's
actions are rather like the Clintonian, "I did not have sex....". Dr. Blair
completely dismisses other views than his own while simultaneously not
demonstrating he understand the content of those messages, and shows himself
unable to discuss what they say with other people.

Phil Innes