Nick wrote:

Then Zsuzsa Polgar should know that Steven B Dowd
apparently feels entitled to unleash his conjectures
about her personal life, if not also his conjectures
about her state of mind.


Why should she care? Unfortunately, Nick, I cannot attach the same
grandiose importance to my newsgroup postings that you do. It was a
topic under discussion and I said what I thought. You act as if I had
nailed 40 theses on her personal life to the door of the Susan Polgar
Foundation offices.

You really need to take a chill pill and realize that neither you or I
have much meaning to GM Polgar. She has her own successful life to
lead, and my little conjecture on USENET isn't going to affect her one
iota.

Go ask one of your many anonymous friends about this situation and be
sure to report back to us on what they said. And make them sound
important too, OK? Don't disappoint now, Nicky.

Chess One wrote:

Q.E.D.

Dr. Dowd cuts the content, the challenge to write as a human being with
common perspective as the rest of us, and persists in his obsessional abuses
with no irony at all.


What content? And why would I be compelled to write as you want me to?
I will write from my perspective, not from yours.

Obsessional abuses, indeed! Have you admitted yet that all this started
because you posted your "question/challenge - whatever you want to call
it" to the wrong person?

Can you even admit it?

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 06 Aug 2006 12:03:14 GMT):

7 ... I extended Dr D an invitation to evaluate his own
7 knowledge, indeed, so that his own disdain at other's
7 could be placed into a perspective, and thereby he
7 could gain some sense of proportion of the worth of
7 other people to exist?
7
7 A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he had read the
7 Gulko MSS, ...

_
What actually happened:
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Chess One"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: What's not in Chess Life (2)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:10:28 GMT

"Larry Tapper" wrote ...
...

....
O. I am sorry Larry ...
....
- let me pause a moment to ask, BTW, if you have read Gulko's
manuscript? -
....
Phil Innes
....
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Chess One wrote:


I extended Dr D an invitation to evaluate his own knowledge, indeed, so that
his own disdain at other's could be placed into a perspective, and thereby
he could gain some sense of proportion of the worth of other people to
exist?

You are a pompous ass. My life's work has been educating and training
people to care for others. Having taught Medical Ethics for some 25
years, I think I have taken into consideration the worth of other
individuals at a deeper level than what could be determined from your
little charade. Who are you to dictate to me what I must know, think,
and feel?

I have very little disdain for others, except those who seem to think
they can dictate to people what they must think and feel. Or people who
pretend to be chess masters, like yourself.

I say we evaluate *our* knowledge and again offer you the chance to
show your superiority ("model intellect") by entering the ChessCafe
Trivia contest this year. Are you up to it? What do you say, "Chess
One"?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

People loathe Truong for the same reasons they loathe Evans, Keene,
Schiller, Parr... because all these people are openly critical of a
political class in chess who serve mostly themselves - indeed, on the
whole,
they only talk with each other - and from one administration to the next,
despite however much money is in the pot, nothing changes for the better.

As usual, a broad and false statement from Brattleboro's Nearly an IM
2450. By your logic, anyone

No Sir, I never wrote of 'anyone'. Neither is what you write to do with
logic. I wrote of people who could not address the issues, instead resented
that the issues existed, and those who raised them, then put their heads in
the sand and uttered muffled indistinct whining noises, a-la-Kingston.

"critical of a political class in chess"
would be tarred with the same brush, and yet neither IM Donaldson (a
real IM, by the way)

I am not an IM Neil - 25 years ago I played against people who were, and
better, and did rather well. I have got over my dissapointment - but never
really had the concinnity necessary to be in the first flite of chess. I am
glad of it!

nor GM Seirawan are so marked. So perhaps there's
another factor at work.

More likely, the reason people "loathe" the persons you name is that
they routinely engage in falsehood and distortion. Examples are
available on request.

How should you know of these things?

If what you know of chess is gained from these newsgroups, then you cannot
know much at all. If things here appear distorted, then they merely deviate
from indolent public opinion which has not informed it self. This is why I
wrote of people who have looked hard all their lives at poltical
manipulations - and are not just tossing off some nervous comments in public
to look as if they are in the swim.

and as a public figure Polgar must expect that such things
will be discussed;

Yes, I think there is an expectation - though that is not to say that
much
of these speculations are decent or honorable! And are usually a failure
to
get things in perspective - the relative weight of the life to the art,
and
also of public to private affairs.

This is resolved in the speculator, rather than elsewhere, since if
writers
do not display some adequate level of human understanding, then such
'expectation' can have little of value, [can it?] other than to distort
how
things actually are.

Then Zsuzsa Polgar should know that Steven B Dowd
apparently feels entitled to unleash his conjectures
about her personal life, if not also his conjectures
about her state of mind.

Although not a specific to Dowd, I think her opinion of many such
newsgroup
'expectations' is, quote, 'vile'.

For myself, I think some of this has to do with celebrity and some to do
with gender. Clearly women in American society suffer more unwelcome and
unwonted attention than men, but the larger fact may be an overemphasis
on
status, and people here obsess about that.

Psychologically, the mechanism is very similar if you either like or
dislike
some fixation - what becomes disturbed is a proportion of things, with
some
part inflated so that it occupies more space than is warranted [ 'a
glamour' ] while other parts are diminished or absented entirely ['a
repression' ].

An interesting way to explore this is to attempt to talk about yourself!
How
honestly could you exclaim on your own life, love, art, and their
inter-relation? How much of yourself is mysterious?!

Idiotically in this instance, Dr D can't even use his own name, or
personal
circumstance, and merely indicates his magnificance to us mortals, rather
than quite engaging with us with perspectives from his own life. These
vicarious excursions into the lives of others are become commonplace in
society and so in newsgroups too, but really are no more than an
inability
to make sense of one's own life and affairs, and a flight into a fantasy
about the lives of others.

whether it fits your narrow ethical and world view or not
is also irrelevant.

"I know from long experience that there is nothing
at all between Dr. (Steven B) Dowd's ears."
--Kenneth Sloan (14 June 2006)

Now go somewhere and proclaim someone "beyond disdain,"
one of your favorite hobbies.

To correct Steven B Dowd's distortion of *exactly* what
I have written, I have written that some writers in RGC*
'warrant no response beyond disdain', which pertains
to what they have written.

I extended Dr D an invitation to evaluate his own knowledge, indeed, so
that
his own disdain at other's could be placed into a perspective, and
thereby
he could gain some sense of proportion of the worth of other people to
exist?

A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he had read the Gulko MSS, but in
his response he eliminated even the question, while maintaining his
superiority over others by putting them down, absent any content.

Again, please present the post in which you "extended" this offer to
Dr. D.

You are such a reprobate that it would not matter if your received this
information or not - since you do not care for the subject under discussion,
that is Gulko's record - and when asked directly gave the Blairian response
that you had not committed yoruself either way.

What you neglect is the fact that without some attention on your own part to
these issues, then none will be paid to you.

What seems most 'disdained' beyond individual behaviors, is the worth of
knowledge and an insistent preference to speculations, which must be
termed
'idle' in the absense of real knowledge - and this is not just
information,
but material taken in as a human being, digested and matured by
reflection,
and so understood in that context.

Why anyone at all on this Planet should argue or behave as if they have
not
exactly the same circumstances of human evaluation as anyone else is a
neurotic activity. To indulge and persist in it is psychotic.

Snip remaining Innes nonsense.

Brennan thinks this is a provocation, but we know that what he snips is
always the most essential part of any post, and he snips it because it
answers the questions he asks - and then he says, where is... ?

Is this completely moronic behavior?

Should he ever be sincere, no doubt someone will attend to his every need,
but not me! The topic under discussion is not his obsession with stalking my
posts, nor his indolent and insincere questioning - it is what was contained
in Susan Polgar's Chesscafe message.

Phil Innes

I am getting confused indeed - all these proclamations about one's worth,
but never any willingness to actual mention the content under discussion.

Are you the person who said they had read everything on some subject, then
when asked a specific, cut it?

As to the Polgar column, it admits a certain distress at the level of
political awareness of chess in the USA. This is only of interest to those
who still think USCF plays any role at all in affairs. To this extent you
are in the same boat as Larry Parr, who contends in his messages that it is
fixable.

In another forum I noted that the Susan Polgar Foundation gave $300,000 in
scholarships last year, and challenged a USCF booster who thought the money
should have gone to USCF about his attitude. Essentially I raised 2 issues:

1) how come USCF didn't raise much money considering it has 30 staff
members?
2) how would USCF have spent this [dedicated money] in a superior way to
SPF?

Of course there were no answers to either question. Can you answer the one
on Gulko I asked you, or was it Dowd? But it makes no difference to me,
since it is the idea that is far more important than the speaker.

If I had insulted you in the process of identification you will have to take
my word that it was an innocent mistake, since all these brown commentaries
are much of a muchness to me, and I thereby insulted you impersonally,
instead of personally.

Phil Innes



wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

Q.E.D.

Dr. Dowd cuts the content, the challenge to write as a human being with
common perspective as the rest of us, and persists in his obsessional
abuses
with no irony at all.


What content? And why would I be compelled to write as you want me to?
I will write from my perspective, not from yours.

Obsessional abuses, indeed! Have you admitted yet that all this started
because you posted your "question/challenge - whatever you want to call
it" to the wrong person?

Can you even admit it?

wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:


I extended Dr D an invitation to evaluate his own knowledge, indeed, so
that
his own disdain at other's could be placed into a perspective, and
thereby
he could gain some sense of proportion of the worth of other people to
exist?

You are a pompous ass.

Thank you for noticing.

My life's work has been educating and training
people to care for others. Having taught Medical Ethics for some 25
years, I think I have taken into consideration the worth of other
individuals at a deeper level than what could be determined from your
little charade. Who are you to dictate to me what I must know, think,
and feel?

Do whatever you want bucko - which is all posture. If you could write to a
topic - why haven't you done so - instread of these parades which are all
about you and your enormous ****ing EGO?

I have very little disdain for others, except those who seem to think
they can dictate to people what they must think and feel. Or people who
pretend to be chess masters, like yourself.

I say we evaluate *our* knowledge and again offer you the chance to
show your superiority ("model intellect") by entering the ChessCafe
Trivia contest this year. Are you up to it? What do you say, "Chess
One"?

Write to the topic - if you can't go 'way from my window, since I ain't
impressed by anything else.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

People loathe Truong for the same reasons they loathe Evans, Keene,
Schiller, Parr... because all these people are openly critical of a
political class in chess who serve mostly themselves - indeed, on the
whole,
they only talk with each other - and from one administration to the next,
despite however much money is in the pot, nothing changes for the better.

As usual, a broad and false statement from Brattleboro's Nearly an IM
2450. By your logic, anyone

No Sir, I never wrote of 'anyone'. Neither is what you write to do with
logic. I wrote of people who could not address the issues, instead resented
that the issues existed, and those who raised them, then put their heads in
the sand and uttered muffled indistinct whining noises, a-la-Kingston.

So, Evans, Keene, Schiller, Parr, etc, are these people? After all,
they are who you are writing about.

"critical of a political class in chess"
would be tarred with the same brush, and yet neither IM Donaldson (a
real IM, by the way)

I am not an IM Neil

I am glad to know you are not an IM Neil.

- 25 years ago I played against people who were, and
better, and did rather well.

I have two won blitz games to my credit against NM Joe Weber, and a
draw against NM Dan Heisman. I think that's doing well, since both
gentlemen have destroyed me at the chessboard regularly. Should I style
myself a "Nearly an NM 2200"?

I have got over my dissapointment - but never
really had the concinnity necessary to be in the first flite of chess. I am
glad of it!

nor GM Seirawan are so marked. So perhaps there's
another factor at work.

More likely, the reason people "loathe" the persons you name is that
they routinely engage in falsehood and distortion. Examples are
available on request.

How should you know of these things?

Examples are too numerous to list here. For instance, I've posted the
link to Winter's article on Keene's theft of Donaldson's intellectual
property on several occasions.

If what you know of chess is gained from these newsgroups, then you cannot
know much at all. If things here appear distorted, then they merely deviate
from indolent public opinion which has not informed it self. This is why I
wrote of people who have looked hard all their lives at poltical
manipulations - and are not just tossing off some nervous comments in public
to look as if they are in the swim.

and as a public figure Polgar must expect that such things
will be discussed;

Yes, I think there is an expectation - though that is not to say that
much
of these speculations are decent or honorable! And are usually a failure
to
get things in perspective - the relative weight of the life to the art,
and
also of public to private affairs.

This is resolved in the speculator, rather than elsewhere, since if
writers
do not display some adequate level of human understanding, then such
'expectation' can have little of value, [can it?] other than to distort
how
things actually are.

Then Zsuzsa Polgar should know that Steven B Dowd
apparently feels entitled to unleash his conjectures
about her personal life, if not also his conjectures
about her state of mind.

Although not a specific to Dowd, I think her opinion of many such
newsgroup
'expectations' is, quote, 'vile'.

For myself, I think some of this has to do with celebrity and some to do
with gender. Clearly women in American society suffer more unwelcome and
unwonted attention than men, but the larger fact may be an overemphasis
on
status, and people here obsess about that.

Psychologically, the mechanism is very similar if you either like or
dislike
some fixation - what becomes disturbed is a proportion of things, with
some
part inflated so that it occupies more space than is warranted [ 'a
glamour' ] while other parts are diminished or absented entirely ['a
repression' ].

An interesting way to explore this is to attempt to talk about yourself!
How
honestly could you exclaim on your own life, love, art, and their
inter-relation? How much of yourself is mysterious?!

Idiotically in this instance, Dr D can't even use his own name, or
personal
circumstance, and merely indicates his magnificance to us mortals, rather
than quite engaging with us with perspectives from his own life. These
vicarious excursions into the lives of others are become commonplace in
society and so in newsgroups too, but really are no more than an
inability
to make sense of one's own life and affairs, and a flight into a fantasy
about the lives of others.

whether it fits your narrow ethical and world view or not
is also irrelevant.

"I know from long experience that there is nothing
at all between Dr. (Steven B) Dowd's ears."
--Kenneth Sloan (14 June 2006)

Now go somewhere and proclaim someone "beyond disdain,"
one of your favorite hobbies.

To correct Steven B Dowd's distortion of *exactly* what
I have written, I have written that some writers in RGC*
'warrant no response beyond disdain', which pertains
to what they have written.

I extended Dr D an invitation to evaluate his own knowledge, indeed, so
that
his own disdain at other's could be placed into a perspective, and
thereby
he could gain some sense of proportion of the worth of other people to
exist?

A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he had read the Gulko MSS, but in
his response he eliminated even the question, while maintaining his
superiority over others by putting them down, absent any content.

Again, please present the post in which you "extended" this offer to
Dr. D.

You are such a reprobate that it would not matter if your received this
information or not - since you do not care for the subject under discussion,
that is Gulko's record - and when asked directly gave the Blairian response
that you had not committed yoruself either way.

When did the discussion become Gulko's record? I thought it was:

"A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he had read the Gulko MSS, but
in his response he eliminated even the question, while maintaining his
superiority over others by putting them down, absent any content." -
Phil Innes

What you neglect is the fact that without some attention on your own part to
these issues, then none will be paid to you.

What seems most 'disdained' beyond individual behaviors, is the worth of
knowledge and an insistent preference to speculations, which must be
termed
'idle' in the absense of real knowledge - and this is not just
information,
but material taken in as a human being, digested and matured by
reflection,
and so understood in that context.

Why anyone at all on this Planet should argue or behave as if they have
not
exactly the same circumstances of human evaluation as anyone else is a
neurotic activity. To indulge and persist in it is psychotic.

Snip remaining Innes nonsense.

Brennan thinks this is a provocation, but we know that what he snips is
always the most essential part of any post,

An odd statement, since nothing was snipped from the end of your post.
You fall into that trap all the time; all one needs to do is add "snip"
to the end of one of your deathless screeds, and you flip out.

and he snips it because it
answers the questions he asks - and then he says, where is... ?

The only question I ask is how a person as insane as Phil Innes manages
to function in society.

Is this completely moronic behavior?

Your posts certainly qualify.

Should he ever be sincere, no doubt someone will attend to his every need,
but not me! The topic under discussion is not his obsession with stalking my
posts, nor his indolent and insincere questioning - it is what was contained
in Susan Polgar's Chesscafe message.

But a moment ago it was allegedly "Gulko's record" which was under
discussion.

Chess One wrote:

Do whatever you want bucko - which is all posture. If you could write to a
topic - why haven't you done so - instread of these parades which are all
about you and your enormous ****ing EGO?

Excuse you? You stated I could not see the world from the perspective
of others, and when I defend myself *I* am the one with the big ****ing
EGO? So I should just take your deprecation? You can spout all day
about how you are such a ****ing know-it-all and we just have to listen
to your off-topic rants? Sorry, I won't take your ignorant bile so
lightly, especially from an anti-Semitic bigot such as yourself..

As Dom DeLuise said in "Loose Cannons," They're ****ing with the wrong
Jew this time!"


Write to the topic - if you can't go 'way from my window, since I ain't
impressed by anything else.

One suspects that Phil Innes is only impressed by Phil Innes. And it
ain't your window - it is our window.

Steven B Dowd (aka ) wrote:
Nick wrote:
(The context was snipped by Steven B Dowd.)
Then Zsuzsa Polgar should know that Steven B Dowd
apparently feels entitled to unleash his conjectures
about her personal life, if not also his conjectures
about her state of mind.

Why should she care?

I did *not* write that Zsuzsa Polgar *should* care
about whatever Steven B Dowd writes about her.

I did *not* predict that Zsuzsa Polgar *will* care
about whatever Steven B Dowd writes about her.

Recently, Steven B Dowd has evidently made it
clear enough that he has no respect whatsoever
for Zsuzsa Polgar 'as a person'.

"Any respect I had for her (Zsuzsa Polgar) as a
person is out the window, subventing (sic) the
democratic process is not exactly we should
encourage."
--Steven B Dowd (1 August 2006, writing
as ' in RGCP)

Whatever Steven B Dowd writes about Zsuzsa
Polgar should be considered in the light of
Steven B Dowd's statement that 'any respect
(he) had for her as a person is out the window'.

By the way, I prefer not to comment on USCF
politics. I have made no comment on Sam
Sloan's election to the USCF Executive Board.
I have made no comment on the criticisms by
Zsuzsa Polgar and other persons of Sam Sloan
becoming a member of the USCF Executive Board.

Unfortunately, Nick, I cannot attach the same
grandiose importance to my newsgroup postings
that you do.

My original criticism was of the writers (plural)
who have made inappropriate comments about
Zsuzsa Polgar's personal life. I did *not* mention
any such writer by name. *Only* Steven B Dowd
has responded with any attempted self-justification.

Within the constraints of my available time, I
make an effort to write posts that are factually
accurate and fair in considering the evidence.
Many other writers in rec.games.chess.*
evidently feel that there's nothing wrong about
their writing many personal insults, dishonest
distortions, and lies ("It's just Usenet!").

It was a topic under discussion and I said what
I thought. You act as if I had nailed 40 theses
on her personal life to the door of the Susan
Polgar Foundation offices.

For the record, my original criticism of the writers
(plural) who have made inappropriate comments
(not only in this most recent thread) about Zsuzsa
Polgar's personal life was *not directed only* at
Steven B Dowd (whom I did not mention by name).
I did *not* single out Steven B Dowd as the worst
offender in my view. As I can recall, some other
writers have made more inappropriate comments
than Steven B Dowd has done about Zsuzsa
Polgar's personal life.

My following comment is general, *not* to
be applied in particular to Steven B Dowd.
I am *not* making any particular comparison
between what Steven B Dowd has done
and the examples that I shall mention.

As I understand it, however, it takes only one
example of inappropriate conduct to get someone
into trouble. For example, a man who's been
accused of sexually harassing a woman cannot
rightfully claim that he's blameless on the grounds
that it's the first time that he ever has sexually
harassed a woman. And Mel Gibson cannot excuse
his recent anti-Semitic comments on the grounds
that he did not send a transcript of them to the
Anti-Defamation League.

You really need to take a chill pill and realize that
neither you or I have much meaning to GM Polgar.

I did *not* write that Zsuzsa Polgar regards Steven
B Dowd or me as having much importance in her life.

It seems too much to expect that Steven B Dowd
could read and comprehend what I wrote and respond
to that rather than apparently attributing beliefs to me
that I have *not* expressed.

She has her own successful life to lead, and
my little conjecture on USENET isn't going to
affect her one iota.

What Steven B Dowd writes about Zsuzsa Polgar's
personal life seems to reveal more about who
Steven B Dowd is than about who Zsuzsa Polgar is.

--Nick

Go ask one of your many anonymous friends about this
situation and be sure to report back to us on what they
said. And make them sound important too, OK?
Don't disappoint now, Nicky.