Louis Blair of Louis Blair fame has long been noted for just providing
long lists of quotes from other people, without really expressing an
opinion himself.

However, over on Wikipedia, Louis Blair has gone completely bonkers.
He has made a bunch of really crazy postings. Here is his latest:

Talk:Julian Simpole
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What source is there for the claim that Hardinge Simpole Publishers is
"one of the leading publishers and distributors of chess books in the
world"? What source is there for the claim that Evans and Watson are
"widely regarded as the most universally respected American writers"?
Is there any source other than Raymond Keene for the claim about
Simpole and Winter? Isn't much of this entry essentially a commercial
for Hardinge Simpole? If there is to be a reference to a supposed
"amazing coincidence" about USCF and Hardinge Simpole, shouldn't it
also be mentioned that (1) many of these books are quite expensive
(for example, $39.95 for the Denker and Parr book); (2) many of these
books are in the now unpopular descriptive notation; (3) in some
cases, the material is quite old (for example, the "modern chess
theory" was written more than two decades ago); (4) in some cases,
there are cheaper alternatives that are likely to be more popular with
modern readers (for example, the much cheaper Hays algebraic editions
of the Nimzowitsch books); and (5) Chess4Less, another seller of chess
books in the United States, also largely ignores Hardinge Simpole
books. - Louis Blair (March 5, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julian_Simpole

I admit that I'm like to pop young cherries. So what? You do to if
you're as macho as I am.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message ...
Louis Blair of Louis Blair fame has long been noted for just providing
long lists of quotes from other people, without really expressing an
opinion himself.


Wrong again. E. g. on Thurs, Mar 2 2006 6:12 pm, Louis Blair wrote
the following opinion:

[ I think the Don Schultz suggestion would be an
improvement on what was passed. In my opinion,
it would be even better to eliminate the quota and
simply encourage the (new) Chess Life editor to
increase coverage of college chess. It seems
heavy-handed and bad for morale if the board
gets into micro-managing an issue like this
without first seeing if a simple suggestion would
do the job without setting quotas.
_
Encouraging college chess is important, and I
have been saying so for years, but it is also
important to improve Chess Life, and I do not
think it is good for the magazine to mandate
a quota for every issue, thus possibly forcing
the editor from time to time to fill up a page
when there is not really much to report. I
agree with Mike Nolan's (Tue Feb 28, 2006
8:27 am) opinion, "I think the editor should
have some discretion as to both frequency
and length."
_
Incidentally, I see no evidence of anything
"dirty" here. It's just a disagreement about
the best approach. ]


Care to toss us another whopper??



However, over on Wikipedia, Louis Blair has gone completely bonkers.
He has made a bunch of really crazy postings. Here is his latest:



None of Blair's points are crazy, Scam. You can't take criticism.

Louis Blair of Louis Blair fame has long been noted for just providing
long lists of quotes from other people, without really expressing an
opinion himself.

Wrong again. E. g. on Thurs, Mar 2 2006 6:12 pm, Louis Blair wrote
the following opinion:

[ I think the Don Schultz suggestion would be an
improvement on what was passed. In my opinion,
it would be even better to eliminate the quota and
simply encourage the (new) Chess Life editor to
increase coverage of college chess. It seems
heavy-handed and bad for morale if the board
gets into micro-managing an issue like this
without first seeing if a simple suggestion would
do the job without setting quotas.
_
Encouraging college chess is important, and I
have been saying so for years, but it is also
important to improve Chess Life, and I do not
think it is good for the magazine to mandate
a quota for every issue, thus possibly forcing
the editor from time to time to fill up a page
when there is not really much to report. I
agree with Mike Nolan's (Tue Feb 28, 2006
8:27 am) opinion, "I think the editor should
have some discretion as to both frequency
and length."
_
Incidentally, I see no evidence of anything
"dirty" here. It's just a disagreement about
the best approach. ]

Care to toss us another whopper??



Of course, Say No to g4 does not have any quotation to back that up.


Here is an example of how Say No to g4 has misquoted me, from back in
November of 1873:


[unable to access archives; computers not yet invented then. Error code
001]


-- Louis Blair

Sam Sloan (or an imposter) asked:

What source is there for the claim that Hardinge Simpole Publishers
is
"one of the leading publishers and distributors of chess books in
the
world"? What source is there for the claim that Evans and Watson are
"widely regarded as the most universally respected American
writers"?



In reply, we see nothing but ad hominem.

Personally, I know nothing about the position of HS Publishers, but I
do know that the claim regarding Evans and Watson is bogus.
Additionally, there is no source given by Louis Blair for the
"universal survey" which determined their alleged status as THE most
respected American writers. OTOH, he was correct about them being both
American, and writers (respected by some, but hardly "universally").

As for Watson, he has consistently advocated the French Defense --
enough said. And as for GM Larry Evans, he cannot spell or even get
his facts straight.


-- help bot

(Sam Sloan) wrote
(Mon, 06 Mar 2006 18:45:03 GMT):
Louis Blair has gone completely bonkers. He has
made a bunch of really crazy postings. Here is his
latest:
_
Talk:Julian Simpole
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_
What source is there for the claim that Hardinge
Simpole Publishers is "one of the leading publishers
and distributors of chess books in the world"? What
source is there for the claim that Evans and Watson
are "widely regarded as the most universally respected
American writers"? ... - Louis Blair (March 5, 2006)

_
helpbot )
wrote (6 Mar 2006 22:06:36 -0800):

Sam Sloan (or an imposter) asked:
_
What source is there for the claim that Hardinge
Simpole ...

_
Helpbot seems to have an imperfect perception of
the situation. I, Louis Blair, was the one who asked
the questions about sources. It was
(Sam Sloan) who quoted
the questions that I asked and decided to respond
by proclaiming that I had "gone completely bonkers".

_
helpbot )
wrote (6 Mar 2006 22:06:36 -0800):

there is no source given by Louis Blair for the
"universal survey" which determined [the alleged
status of Evans and Watson] as THE most
respected American writers.

_
I did not claim that Evans and Watson are "widely
regarded as the most universally respected American
writers". This claim had appeared at Wikipedia and
my involvement had been to ask about the source
for this claim. This was one of my March 5, 2006
questions that was quoted by
(Sam Sloan).

(Sam Sloan) wrote
(Mon, 06 Mar 2006 18:45:03 GMT):
Louis Blair of Louis Blair fame has long been
noted for just providing long lists of quotes from
other people, without really expressing an
opinion himself.
_
SayNoTog4 wrote (Mon, 6 Mar 2006 19:25:17 -0500):
Wrong again. E. g. on Thurs, Mar 2 2006 6:12 pm,
Louis Blair wrote the following opinion:
_
[ I think the Don Schultz suggestion would be an
improvement on what was passed. In my opinion,
it would be even better to eliminate the quota and
simply encourage the (new) Chess Life editor to
increase coverage of college chess. ... ]
_
Care to toss us another whopper??

_
helpbot )
wrote (6 Mar 2006 22:06:36 -0800):

Of course, Say No to g4 does not have any
quotation to back that up.
_
Here is an example of how Say No to g4 has
misquoted me, from back in November of 1873:
_
[unable to access archives; computers not yet
invented then. Error code 001]
_
-- Louis Blair

_
I assume that helpbot was just trying to post a
parody of me, but, to make sure that there is no
confusion, SayNoTog4 was referring to an opinion
that I did indeed express (Fri Mar 03, 2006) at
_
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewto...asc&start =15
_
and also here on 2 Mar 2006 15:12:01 -0800.

My apologies to Louis Blair. I got the questions and the answers
backwards. I still don't know which Sam Sloan is the real one, and
which the imposter, but I should have been able to tell the difference
between Blair and (either) Sloan.

Everything makes sense now; Of course, had Louis Blair been the one
making the claim, he would have quoted the source -- that goes without
saying. Duh!