"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
. ..
Chess One wrote:
This is a chess newsgroup Murray - if the dirty vicar here wants to snip
references and admonitions to him to discuss chess, and insist that
others are terrible, he would be just like any other flash newbie, and
those who never got past the very self-satisfied clever level... but
then he won't be like you, and Brennan, will he, since that's all you
do - and as you know, there is safety in numbers. 'Thou shalt not follow
a multitude to do evil.' You'd better protest more, otherwise you'll lose
him if he dared actually talk chess. Do /you/ play, by the way? Do you
like it?

I 'snipped' several of your entries earlier because you filled them with
incoherent insults -- as you did above. You don't like being snipped. One
alternative you could pursue is to write more civilly and depend less on
insulting people. The paragraph above is difficult to parse. It is clear
you are upset, and you are attempting to abuse me again. I will not ask
you for an apology this time. It would be a wasted effort.

I see once again you are attempting to control the discourse here by
insisting that it be about 'playing chess.'

My Dear Vicar!

And you are trying to control it by eliminating what you do not like to
read, but then paraphrasing it! it is difficult to parse, yet clear to you
that... etc. shrug

Mike Murray's idea of control was to eliminate 25 objections to both his own
and rule-of-law activities he conducted here. As in another current case
floundering around these newsgroups, there were not weighted, but rubbished
and entirely dismissed. Without irony he neverthless accuses me of wanting
to control everything.

What I should like to do is to talk from my own experience of chess, if
possible. Should you eliminate my own invitation to you to do the same, then
please do not continue to wrestle the context to your own perspective alone,
if you actually want to have a conversation.

It is BTW a rather silly ploy to snip then demand to know what people mean.
While it is a common thing to do, there are other possibilities, and the
rest of this message does not appreciate my intelligence nor yours.

To have any conversation at all, there needs to be a subject, clearly
identified, to which we can agree, disagree, or keep our council. It needs
to be a chess topic. This thread, so it seems to me, is the result of never
identifiying a clear topic, nor staying the course of addressing that
topic - and the logical result of that is someone must be called a liar.

ON TOPIC?

Some time ago if ceased being a conversation and became a competition - but
unless you are a closer reader than I, no light is shed on Keres/Botvinnik
from the original materials presented here.

Therefore we have a spat on who said what and when, instead of what
substantive material was addressed in these communications.

I have at least one bias here, perhaps two of them. I have seen both public
and private writers of a principle to the affair, and secondly, if I were
Evans or his editor, I too would have eliminated Taylor Kingston's response,
since it added nothing substantive about Keres/Botvinnik than his first
did - but instead inveigled on the fairness of making further public
presentations in CL.

If that is your idea of the topical material in this thread, then we could
continue to talk in this thread about that topic. Otherwise, not!

Phil Innes

Nevertheless, I did answer this question here some time ago. I will not
go over it again, but if you have skill with the archives, you should have
no problem retrieving it. I hope you are aware that chess culture has far
more to it than just playing rated tournament games...

You see, admonishing others to do things you don't do yourself is
hypocritical, whether you wear a dog-collar or a ten-gallon hat.

You will have to be more specific Mr. Innes. What admonishment are you
talking about? Since I do not know what you are referring to I have no
way to address your claim of hypocrisy other than to suggest you learn to
write with more clarity. How does your reference to hats and collars have
anything to do with it?

Phil Innes

I have tried to take something positive out of this. I noted that you
expressed disdain for my signature. I have changed it for your sake.
--


Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

" If only Phil [Innes] would apologize to the group, admit he's
substituted bombast for reasoned discourse, promise to conduct rationally
these discussions in the future, eschew exhibitionist use of foreign
phrases, and, last but not least, commit to a spell-checker, we'd welcome
him back into the communion of chess fans." -- Mike Murray