Chess One wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Mike Murray wrote:
"Chess One" wrote:

I'm not, even wear wode when playing.


Wode is fine when one is running around attacking people, but sitting
for hours in an air conditioned tournament room? Brrrrr.

Down South we just wanna go out and "thump" sum noggins!
We do that when we awr fixen ta git fawred up. :-)

Not sure how one would translate that into it's true native tongue.
Since Applacia and the South is one of the last refruges in the US
where portions of the old dialect still remain.
Rob

You'd be blue enough without the woad.

Thank you for this other spelling. Its a very old word, predating Anglo
Saxon who spelled it [sometimes] WODE, but meant mad, furious, as is
recorded in MS Cantab Ff v 48 f. 50

Ther is no hert ne bucke so wode
that I ne get without blode.

Brother - I could relate to that!

Some say the herb is WODEBRON; from /fraximus/, although WODEWHISTLE is
hemlock, and WODESOWR is /alleluja/. WODWOS is wildmen - and that must be
where Yorhshire-Hughes got his title.

here is an early mention of the benefical effects of wearing wode and
playing chess:

Hym to venge he thogt wele late,
hewchon on the crowne he smate,
To the gyrdulle stede hyt wode.

/MS Cantab, Ff ii 38 f. 153

Entirely in A. Sax:

Better I show up in wode than be-WLUINE [she-wolf], when so WO [grief, A.
Sax] wommel [auger] WON [one] WONED [custom, to be accustomed]. Indeed,
WHEVERE [a serpent] WIVVER [to shake].

Though these be your formations in your Aonglis tongue, dear Saxons, each
they elder owe still yet.

Phil





Dave.

--
David Richerby Poisonous Miniature Cheese
(TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a brick of cheese but
you
can hold in it your hand and
it'll
kill you in seconds!

David Richerby wrote (03 May 2006 18:44:13 +0100 (BST)):

To describe Steinitz's tournament record as 'abysmal'
gives the impression that he did very badly in tournaments
rather than that he avoided them but I find it hard to class
this as more than 'misleading'; it's certainly not the sort of
'inexcusable action' you refer to later in your post.

_
Is it excusable to be misleading and to continue to insist
that the misleading choice was "fair"? It seems to me
that that is the sort of attitude that can lead to talk of a
reviewer deciding to "concentrate" on a game, when, in
reality, all the reviewer did was mention a sentence
from the INTRODUCTION to the game, and comment
on how little it had to do with the game.

David Richerby:

To describe Steinitz's tournament record as 'abysmal'
gives the impression that he did very badly in tournaments
rather than that he avoided them but I find it hard to class
this as more than 'misleading'; it's certainly not the sort of
'inexcusable action' you refer to later in your post.


Louis Blair:

"Is it excusable to be misleading and to continue to insist
that the misleading choice was "fair"? It seems to me
that that is the sort of attitude that can lead to talk of a
reviewer deciding to "concentrate" on a game, when, in
reality, all the reviewer did was mention a sentence
from the INTRODUCTION to the game, and comment
on how little it had to do with the game."



Just put Keene's body on that table over there, next to the others
for now. When they come in the morning, they can identify him by
unzipping the body bag and checking his toe-tag. GM Keene, tagged and
bagged.


-- help bot

Louis Blair wrote:
David Richerby wrote (03 May 2006 18:44:13 +0100 (BST)):
To describe Steinitz's tournament record as 'abysmal' gives the
impression that he did very badly in tournaments rather than that
he avoided them but I find it hard to class this as more than
'misleading'; it's certainly not the sort of 'inexcusable action'
you refer to later in your post.

Is it excusable to be misleading and to continue to insist that the
misleading choice was "fair"?

We're conflating two completely different things he how likely it
is that forgiveness will be forthcoming and how serious the crime is.
One usually only trumpets an `inexcusable action' if it is both very
hard to forgive and very serious.

As I have stated, I do not think Keene should have described
Steinitz's record as `abysmal' when he meant something like
`shamefully non-existent'. But, in the grand scheme of things, it's
not all that serious: certainly not worth bearing a grudge about until
one of the parties dies.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Vomit (TM): it's like a pile
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of puke but it's genuinely erotic!

David Richerby wrote:
Louis Blair wrote:
David Richerby wrote (03 May 2006 18:44:13 +0100 (BST)):
To describe Steinitz's tournament record as 'abysmal' gives the
impression that he did very badly in tournaments rather than that
he avoided them but I find it hard to class this as more than
'misleading'; it's certainly not the sort of 'inexcusable action'
you refer to later in your post.

Is it excusable to be misleading and to continue to insist that the
misleading choice was "fair"?

We're conflating two completely different things he how likely it
is that forgiveness will be forthcoming and how serious the crime is.
One usually only trumpets an `inexcusable action' if it is both very
hard to forgive and very serious.


As I have stated, I do not think Keene should have described
Steinitz's record as `abysmal' when he meant something like
`shamefully non-existent'. But, in the grand scheme of things, it's
not all that serious: certainly not worth bearing a grudge about until
one of the parties dies.

How refreshing, a voice of logic and reason. I agree.
Rob

Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Vomit (TM): it's like a pile
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of puke but it's genuinely erotic!

David Richerby wrote (03 May 2006 18:44:13 +0100 (BST)):
To describe Steinitz's tournament record as 'abysmal'
gives the impression that he did very badly in tournaments
rather than that he avoided them but I find it hard to class
this as more than 'misleading'; it's certainly not the sort of
'inexcusable action' you refer to later in your post.

_
I wrote (4 May 2006 16:23:05 -0700):

Is it excusable to be misleading and to continue to insist
that the misleading choice was "fair"?

_
David Richerby wrote (05 May 2006 10:59:30 +0100 (BST))"

We're conflating two completely different things he how
likely it is that forgiveness will be forthcoming and how
serious the crime is.

_
I am not "conflating" any two things. I am posing a question.

_
David Richerby wrote (05 May 2006 10:59:30 +0100 (BST))"

One usually only trumpets an `inexcusable action' if it is both
very hard to forgive and very serious.
_
As I have stated, I do not think Keene should have described
Steinitz's record as `abysmal' when he meant something like
`shamefully non-existent'. But, in the grand scheme of things,
it's not all that serious: certainly not worth bearing a grudge
about until one of the parties dies.

_
It seems to me that misleading-is-fair is the sort of attitude
that can lead to talk of a reviewer deciding to "concentrate"
on a game, when, in reality, all the reviewer did was mention
a sentence from the INTRODUCTION to the game, and
comment on how little it had to do with the game.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ps.com...

It seems to me that misleading-is-fair is the sort of attitude
that can lead to talk of a reviewer deciding to "concentrate"
on a game, when, in reality, all the reviewer did was mention
a sentence from the INTRODUCTION to the game, and
comment on how little it had to do with the game.

When I previously asked Louis Blair to say what he meant by fair [about
Winter's comment on BCO], he declined to do so and referred me to a
dictionary. I suppose I could read the range of meanings of 'fair' there,
but what Blair thinks fair is obscure.

Phil Innes

Louis Blair wrote:
David Richerby wrote (03 May 2006 18:44:13 +0100 (BST)):
Louis Blair wrote:
Is it excusable to be misleading and to continue to insist that
the misleading choice was "fair"?

We're conflating two completely different things he how likely
it is that forgiveness will be forthcoming and how serious the
crime is.

I am not "conflating" any two things. I am posing a question.

OK. If you're not conflating excusability with seriousness, could you
please explain why you're concentrating on the former rather than the
latter?


As I have stated, I do not think Keene should have described
Steinitz's record as `abysmal' when he meant something like
`shamefully non-existent'. But, in the grand scheme of things,
it's not all that serious: certainly not worth bearing a grudge
about until one of the parties dies.

It seems to me that misleading-is-fair is the sort of attitude

I never said it was fair. I just said that `in the grand scheme of
things, it's not all that serious: certainly not worth bearing a
grudge about until one of the parties dies.'


Dave.

--
David Richerby Salted Generic Cat (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ cuddly pet but it's just like all the
others and covered in salt!

David Richerby wrote (03 May 2006 18:44:13 +0100 (BST)):
To describe Steinitz's tournament record as 'abysmal'
gives the impression that he did very badly in tournaments
rather than that he avoided them but I find it hard to class
this as more than 'misleading'; it's certainly not the sort of
'inexcusable action' you refer to later in your post.
_
I wrote (4 May 2006 16:23:05 -0700):
Is it excusable to be misleading and to continue to insist
that the misleading choice was "fair"?
_
David Richerby wrote (05 May 2006 10:59:30 +0100 (BST)):
One usually only trumpets an `inexcusable action' if it is both
very hard to forgive and very serious.
_
As I have stated, I do not think Keene should have described
Steinitz's record as `abysmal' when he meant something like
`shamefully non-existent'. But, in the grand scheme of things,
it's not all that serious: certainly not worth bearing a grudge
about until one of the parties dies.
_
I wrote (5 May 2006 06:44:06 -0700):
It seems to me that misleading-is-fair is the sort of attitude
that can lead to talk of a reviewer deciding to "concentrate"
on a game, when, in reality, all the reviewer did was mention
a sentence from the INTRODUCTION to the game, and
comment on how little it had to do with the game.

_
David Richerby wrote (05 May 2006 15:26:31 +0100 (BST)):

could you please explain why you're concentrating on
"excusability" rather than "seriousness"?
...
I never said ["abysmal"] was fair.

_
But GM Keene did:
_
"If [a world champion] stops for 10 years,
I think abysmal is fair." - GM Keene quote
reported by Larry Parr (3 May 2006
15:57:36 -0700)
_
I think it is a serious concern if a writer (who attacks
people publicly) claims fairness for something that
is misleading.

I agree with David Richerby that there's not much at stake he

DR As I have stated, I do not think Keene should have described
Steinitz's record as `abysmal' when he meant something like
`shamefully non-existent'. But, in the grand scheme of things,
it's not all that serious: certainly not worth bearing a grudge
about until one of the parties dies.

Though duels have been fought over even less.

If anything about this is noteworthy, though, I think it's Keene's
disappointing reply:

I excoriated Steinitz's tournament record during
a certain period. I described it as abysmal. Well
it was during this periodbecause he didn't play
any tournaments at all. I have used the same
word, or one similar, to describe Bobby Fischer's
record as world champion because hd did not play
at all. I fail to see what's wrong with that.

A polymath he may be, but word usage doesn't seem to be his strong
point. And you'd think he might ask someone like Larry Parr before
digging in his heels and insisting that his original word choice was
just fine. Especially in view of the fact that for some unknown reason
his missives are going through Parr's mailbox anyway.

Larry T.