Chapman billy wrote in message m...
In article ,
says...
Simon,
Thanks for writing. I appreciate your mentioning a fact that you thought
that I had overlooked. Actually, I already knew that Scandinavia properly
comprises Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, though in informal usage Finland
has been included.

Nick,
Thank you for your response. It is a shame that so many contributors appear
to be unclubbable men;

Bourbon: Shame and eternal shame, nothing but shame!
Let us die in honour: once more back again...
--Shakespeare (Henry V)

Dear Simon,

Yes, I would like to encourage more women to contribute to these 'discussions',
but this newsgroup's atmosphere sometimes has not been too welcoming.

For example, NoMoreChess posted an apparent 'joke' about how to rape a woman:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G2EF21675

Evidently, there are some major differences among the writers here with
respect to what conventions and norms--if any--should govern their behaviour.
You and I (and many others) seem to be more or less in accord about the
requirement for some basic rules of conduct. On the other hand, there are
some writers who apparently believe: "This is Usenet--anything goes."

For example, in the thread, "Will anybody who voted for Sam Sloan dare to
to speak up?" (21 July 2003), Briarroot wrote to Mark Houlsby
"...Rules of the newsgroup? ROTFLMAO Does little man want his mama?..."

In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), Briarroot wrote
to me: "Now this I readily admit to. You deserve to be insulted, roundly
and repeatedly. I consider it my duty to expose you..."

Someone else has advised me: "That's why God created killfiles."

so perhaps this is a cri de coeur for more soldiers of the monstrous
regiment to trumpet in this group?

I found it quite refreshing to enjoy a civilised discussion with you and
Mr. Eggertsson here in this sub-thread.

Anyhow, I don't see the harm in an occasional off topic post.

We have been writing in an undeclared off-topic thread (created by Bill Smythe).

Here's my view of some chess newsgroups:

rec.games.chess.politics is a de facto USCF politics group, which I don't
follow because I have no interest in USCF politics and minimal interest
in the sociology/pathology of that part of United States political culture.
Unfortunately, RGCP participants seem to cross-post too frequently here.

rec.games.chess.analysis is the place for technical discussions of chess.

rec.games.chess.misc is the place for general conversations, which need not
be restricted to chess, that might take place at a chess club in real life.

I thought it best to find out indirectly whether you were seeking to anneal
the meaning of what Tim Hanke wrote,

Tim Hanke is not a historian, and I don't take him seriously as a writer on
history. What I write about history is not altered by whatever he writes.

"The historian has much to answer for. History--that is, written history--has
made and unmade States, given courage to the oppressed and undermined the
oppressor, has justified aggression and overridden law."
--C.V. Wedgwood (Velvet Studies, p. 154)

or whether you were being careless in lobbing Nordic Finland into Scandinavia.
Most people who have called the Finns Scandinavian that I have come across
genuinely have been unaware of the inaccuracy; somewhat implausible in your
particular instance, but then you usually take great pains to achieve your
desired effect in your postings.

Some of the effects of my posts have definitely not been desired or intended
by me. I have been frustrated by some persistent misreadings of my posts.

Yet thanks very much for expressing your recognition that at least I 'usually
take great pains' in my writing to make my meanings clear enough to the able
and willing reader. Within the limits of my time and space and knowledge and
energy (I tend to be less attentive at the end of a long day), I attempt to
be as accurate as practicable. Given those limits, sometimes I have to
simplify a complex issue, and occasionally my memory falls short of perfection.
(For instance, based on a collection of his best games, I once wrote that
C.H.O'D Alexander had died in 1973, when he actually had died in 1974.)

Also, I have been (and perhaps I still am) the target of a campaign of personal
defamation from a few extreme right-wing Americans--Tim Hanke, StanB, and
Briarroot--who apparently vehemently object on political grounds to my writing
about history. They have made ludicrous attempts to distort my writings.

For example, in the thread, "If chess pieces could talk" (5 August 2003),
StanB wrote that my phase "*only* the most ignorant or prejudiced Americans"
implies that I must be referring to "many Americans", which was his phrase.
StanB then denounced me as an anti-American bigot. So I wondered why StanB
believed that "many Americans" (his phrase) were included among "only the
most ignorant or prejudiced Americans". StanB did not respond.

I did not write that Finland is part of Scandinavia. My intention (which
was understood by Sigvaldi Eggertsson in his response) was to suggest one
reason why Sweden did not join the Allies. If Sweden had done that, then
it would have gone to war against its neighbour, Finland, which would have
been quite unwelcome to many Swedes. Finland has a substantial Swedish
minority, and the Swedes traditionally have felt close to the Finns. For
example, with the approval of their government, many Swedes volunteered to
fight for Finland in its 1939-40 'Winter War' against the Soviet Union.
And most Swedes seemed sympathetic toward Finland in its 1941-44
'Continuation War' against the Soviet Union.

You are being very delicate in not mentioning that Finland was once part of
the Swedish empire, along with a large chunk of the Baltic...

Sweden's King Charles XII conquered much Russian territory until his decisive
defeat at the Battle of Poltava in 1709.

For further reading:
"The Battle of Poltava: the Birth of the Russian Empire" by Peter Englund

The Finns had to wait until the Russian Revolution before being able to slip
their moorings and begin their voyage as an independent state; unfortunately
not without a vicious civil war.

During the Winter War (1939-40), the Soviets hoped to divide the Finns by
exploiting any lasting bitterness from Finland's civil war. But the
solidarity of Finnish nationalism was too strong to be subverted.

It is my impression that the Norwegians bear the brunt of the Swedes'
"Irish" (for want of a better word) jokes...

Yes, as I recall, there's one about a Norwegian who uses sandpaper as a map.

All in all Finland has an impressive record as an independent state: you
doubtless recall the bilateral trade agreements with the Soviet Union, and
the potentially disastrous impact upon the Finnish economy when that empire
collapsed. Yet the Finns managed to pull themselves round.

Yes, it was already impressive that Finland--unlike Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania--was able to preserve its national independence during the 1940s.

Of course, another reason why Sweden did not join the Allies was that
Hitler never got around to invading Sweden.

As long as Germany was assured of adequate supplies of iron ore and ball
bearings from Sweden, Hitler did not believe that there was a strategic
necessity for invasion.

"Lire et relire l'histoire; c'est la seule philosophie."
--Napoleon

--Nick