"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

I think some of the language used by Brock, Booz, Houlsby and others
here is gratuitously crude, vulgar, and offensive. However, I have
never approved it, nor tried to portray them as moral exemplars, either
absolute or relative.
Parr, on the other hand, has said:

"Mr. Sloan's language is cleaner than that of most of his gutter
critics ..." - rgcp, 23 June 2005
"I never paraded Mr. Sloan as a paragon; I stated that he is to be
admired in certain ways when compared with a Brock, Booz, Trollsby or
now humbled Kingston,"

After thoroughly perusing the above links, pray tell us, Larry: In
what ways are they "to be admired," and what are they "cleaner" than?

O come on Taylor! you have picked on Sam Sloan's bad language on this
singular occasion and only noted the same of your usual supporters when
their effusions are forcibly held under your nose!

nil fuit umquam sic impar sibi, nothing was ever so inconsistent with itself

to a philosopher, what one does is much more significant that what one says
one does

why are you lying down with dogs? if you were intending to be sincere about
calling out the more asinine commentaries here, why research only research
those who disagree with you?

you are in some danger of completely converting from asinine to canine

cordially, phil innes

Chess One wrote:
O come on Taylor! you have picked on Sam Sloan's bad language on this
singular occasion and only noted the same of your usual supporters when
their effusions are forcibly held under your nose!

Phil, as usual you completely miss the point. My target here is not
so much Sloan as Parr. Your argument would be relevant if I had
praised, say, Brock, Booz, or Houlsby for the gentlemanly restraint of
their language compared to Sloan's. I have not, because their language
has not been so restrained.
Parr, on the other hand, has plainly said that Sloan "is to be
admired in certain ways when compared with a Brock, Booz, Trollsby."
Well, I just don't see any evidence for that; I have a hard time
admiring anyone who says "The reason Japanese girls come to America is
to get f--ked by a N--ger." Parr so far has not told us what he admires
about that statement.
Parr has also said "Mr. Sloan's language is cleaner than that of most
of his gutter critics." Well, it ain't, nor is his mind.
Herewith my third installment on that topic:

From Sloan's web-site:
http://www.samsloan.com/****book.htm
http://samsloan.best.vwh.net/gobble.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/moremami.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/got-her.htm
http://www.ishipress.com/wimmer.htm
http://samsloan.best.vwh.net/pornplot.htm
http://samsloan.best.vwh.net/wonders.htm

From soc.culture.taiwan:
http://tinyurl.com/9p2hv

From soc.men:
http://tinyurl.com/aw6gk

From soc.history.war.misc:
http://tinyurl.com/exgd9

From soc.culture.japan:
http://tinyurl.com/7rn9z

From alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:
http://tinyurl.com/9655r

From soc.culture.bangladesh:
http://tinyurl.com/af3ae

From rec.games.chess.politics:
http://tinyurl.com/cq4uc
http://tinyurl.com/9nuuo -- click on "read more" and scan down to
the discussion of Schultz and Campomanes.

From alt.politics.clinton:
http://tinyurl.com/aqwtj

http://www.brindin.com/pohoromn.htm

nunc aliquis dicat mihi, 'quid tu? nullane habes vitia?' immo alia et
fortasse minora.

Now someone may say 'What about you? Have you no faults?' Oh yes I
but they're different and perhaps less serious.

***

Let me help, Phil: Here's a Google hit in rgcp for "Brock n*gger"

http://tinyurl.com/bstpn

(click thru to the first *.mp3 - well worth it)

And here's one for "Brock f*ck" - from the Golden Age of rgcp Comedy

http://tinyurl.com/aclub

You might find a decapitation or two as well....

Innes--"to a philosopher, what one does is much more significant that
what one says one does" False distinction: one can of course do things
with words (Austin's illocutionary and perlocutionary acts).

It's simplistic to count f-bombs; it's more meaningful to examine why
the f-bombs are being deployed.

Chess One wrote:

why are you lying down with dogs? if you were intending to be sincere about
calling out the more asinine commentaries here, why research only research
those who disagree with you?

Yes, Phil, I have often wondered about your silence on the
commentaries of Goran Tomic, such as the time this April he insulted my
just-deceased father before he was cold in his grave. Only one of many
examples I might mention.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:
O come on Taylor! you have picked on Sam Sloan's bad language on this
singular occasion and only noted the same of your usual supporters when
their effusions are forcibly held under your nose!

Phil, as usual you completely miss the point.

Taylor, as usual, you talk about another point, or rather a blunted object,
lacking any acuity.

My target here is not
so much Sloan as Parr. Your argument would be relevant if I had
praised, say, Brock, Booz, or Houlsby for the gentlemanly restraint of
their language compared to Sloan's. I have not, because their language
has not been so restrained.

No it would not. But I am cotent not to contend it more, ab ovo.

Parr, on the other hand, has plainly said that Sloan "is to be
admired in certain ways when compared with a Brock, Booz, Trollsby."
Well, I just don't see any evidence for that; I have a hard time
admiring anyone who says "The reason Japanese girls come to America is
to get f--ked by a N--ger." Parr so far has not told us what he admires
about that statement.
Parr has also said "Mr. Sloan's language is cleaner than that of most
of his gutter critics." Well, it ain't, nor is his mind.

Before we leave the track entirely, to follow your own tracts below, do you
have no sense of your /own/ obsession with this subject? That /you/ actively
seek out material against a person with whom you diasagreed, while ignoring
more strident and indeed slimey material from people with whom you agree?

This is not a subtle difference, except perhaps to bovine indifference.

To wit: If Sam Sloan had not happened to challenge your rating and current
playing skill would you be as anxious to find out and publish all his sins?
Is that as good as an absolution for you?

aeturnum servans sub pectore vulnus, said Vergel, on nursing an everlasting
wound within the breast.

Cordially, Phil Innes


Herewith my third installment on that topic:

From Sloan's web-site:
http://www.samsloan.com/****book.htm
http://samsloan.best.vwh.net/gobble.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/moremami.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/got-her.htm
http://www.ishipress.com/wimmer.htm
http://samsloan.best.vwh.net/pornplot.htm
http://samsloan.best.vwh.net/wonders.htm

From soc.culture.taiwan:
http://tinyurl.com/9p2hv

From soc.men:
http://tinyurl.com/aw6gk

From soc.history.war.misc:
http://tinyurl.com/exgd9

From soc.culture.japan:
http://tinyurl.com/7rn9z

From alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:
http://tinyurl.com/9655r

From soc.culture.bangladesh:
http://tinyurl.com/af3ae

From rec.games.chess.politics:
http://tinyurl.com/cq4uc
http://tinyurl.com/9nuuo -- click on "read more" and scan down to
the discussion of Schultz and Campomanes.

From alt.politics.clinton:
http://tinyurl.com/aqwtj

Innes--"to a philosopher, what one does is much more significant that
what one says one does" False distinction: one can of course do things
with words (Austin's illocutionary and perlocutionary acts).

This is a better attempt. But you move too quickly outward after an insight,
whereas to persevere would reveal that to reflect on what one does is
philosophy, and 'doing things' polity

Indeed, on this very point Heidegger said that such speech without
experience [by which he meant a bio-psychic engagement, beyond mere
mentalisation, or as we would say 'head-tripping'] is nominated a 'pathic
discourse', and is a form of madness

It's simplistic to count f-bombs; it's more meaningful to examine why
the f-bombs are being deployed.

And it is brave to wonder about one's own interest, and much rarer.

Good post.

Phil

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...


Chess One wrote:

why are you lying down with dogs? if you were intending to be sincere
about
calling out the more asinine commentaries here, why research only
research
those who disagree with you?

Yes, Phil, I have often wondered about your silence on the
commentaries of Goran Tomic, such as the time this April he insulted my
just-deceased father before he was cold in his grave. Only one of many
examples I might mention.

You are lying down with dogs because of my silence over Goran Tomic's
slighting comment?

These are emotional topics. I will not pretend that these surface indicators
are anything much of relevance to a person's complexity of motive, and only
wonder why people here are acting as if this were untrue, like demented
librarians counting the typo's in the book to assess its literary merit.

Phil

So I ask you to go out on a limb and to crudely generalize, Phil.
Given the request, no penalty for wrong answers from me, or from any
onlookers.

(How could you know what is by definition inaccessible to you?) But
give it a whirl...it's rgcp.

1. Why do I drop the f-bomb (specifically: in the past couple weeks
here)?

2. Why does Sloan drop the f-bomb in the various web pages cited by
Kingston?

_
"One can criticize one wrongdoer without
being obliged to criticize all wrongdoers.
If such an obligation existed, very little
criticism would ever actually get done."
- Louis Blair (Mon, 01 Jul 2002
14:44:34 -0500)

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Chess One wrote:

why are you lying down with dogs? if you were intending to be sincere about
calling out the more asinine commentaries here, why research only research
those who disagree with you?

Yes, Phil, I have often wondered about your silence on the
commentaries of Goran Tomic, such as the time this April he insulted my
just-deceased father before he was cold in his grave. Only one of many
examples I might mention.

Taylor,

Tomic is the "Corky" of the English-speaking chess world; someone whose
praise is worth even less than their criticism. While I imagine your
father's death would render you particularly vulnerable, why ON EARTH
would you let someone like him make even the slightest dent in your
psyche?

Just curious.

Regards,

Matt

PS. BTW, getting into a ****ing-contest with someone who defended the
likes of "Dr." Rolf Teuschen will only get you wet and stinky.