"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
igy.com...
Thanks. Also for whatever it's worth: I choose the Masked Bishop moniker
because I was going to use an alias on the usenet regardless, and it seemed
more amusing (and honest) to use one that's so obviously silly, rather than
just make up a name or use the word "mail" backwards.

"The Masked Bishop", I can understand your reasoning.

'Bourbaki' is a well-known pseudonym for a group of mathematicians.
It does not refer to any known living individual person.
Accordingly, no one (apart from the disturbed Wlodzimierz ("I have never
insulted anyone") Holsztynski) should feel defamed by my usage of it.

My reasons for using an alias are not because I'm some secret insider in the
US Chess community, but because I think the Usenet is a pretty lawless, wild
place, and I believe it pays to protect one's identity from people one
doesn't, and can't, know.

Sherlock Holmes: 'Excellence at chess is one mark of a scheming mind.'
--Arthur Conan Doyle (The Adventure of the Retired Colourman)

I prefer to accept other writers here on their own terms as much as I honestly
can. To me, you are essentially represented only by whatever you write here.
You have the right to decide how much you are willing to reveal about yourself
personally. (I feel that Sam Sloan reveals too much about himself personally,
but I don't have to read all of it.)

When a writer makes a personal claim, my acceptance of it depends on its
plausibility and the evidence provided to support it. If someone claims to
have a licence to drive an automobile, then I would tend to accept it without
asking for any supporting evidence. If someone claims to be a driver for a
Formula 1 racing team, then I would have to ask for one's supporting evidence.

When recently in the thread, "Sportsmanship and pre-arranged results",
I responded to Mike Murray's trolling by writing simply that I am stronger
than an 'ordinary club player' (for instance, USCF class C) at chess, Mike
Murray apparently accused me, in effect, of making a boast. In my view,
my claim was hardly extraordinary, and I have no more need to prove it than
I should have to prove that I have a safe record for driving an automobile.

Someone else can disagree with me on nearly any subject without losing my
personal respect if one does it in an intellectually honest way. I like to
assume that other writers here are being honest with me until I have reason
to believe otherwise. I do take exception to those writers who have lied
to me or about me, and I tend not to trust or to respect them any more.

As I am only human, occasionally I do make mistakes (such as a few misspellings
of other writers' names here), but I attempt to correct those mistakes about
as soon as I become aware of them, even if I have not yet been asked to do so.

"The Masked Bishop", I have to say that your writings here seem to represent
two distinct personalities. Sometimes you have written evidently thoughtful
posts with interesting points that I can respect even though I don't always
agree with them. At other times, unfortunately, you have written like a troll.

As far as I can tell, you have the ability to make interesting contributions
to the chess newgroups, and I hope that you will recognise that most readers
here--I hope--should appreciate those posts more than your trolling posts.
Thanks in advance.

--Nick