Rob wrote:

Waah! I screwed up and they pointed it out! They're mean!



Chris Mattern

Jeesh, Rob, in one post I am a pseudointellectual, and then when I
don't conform to that stereotype, you feel a need to disparage my
education and then drag out a dictionary definition that conveniently
leaves out the one I meant? It's all an argument of convenience for you
in your pursuit of Neil? What in the world does he matter to you?

Such a fixation cannot be healthy.

I am sorry, but my description of you as immature was actually too
kind. Rob Mitchell, another resident of the United States of the
Offended. What he doesn't understand, he finds offensive. And such
things must be purged and cleansed until they are, let's say,
lily-white?

wrote:
Jeesh, Rob, in one post I am a pseudointellectual, and then when I
don't conform to that stereotype, you feel a need to disparage my
education and then drag out a dictionary definition that conveniently
leaves out the one I meant?

I wanted to find out what you ment. Dictionary .com listed only those
three. Perhaps the online dictionary is flawed. If you ment to call me
something else I appologize for not being able to find the meaning.

It's all an argument of convenience for you
in your pursuit of Neil? What in the world does he matter to you?

Neil Brennen attacked me without cause over two years ago on this very
board. I attempted to keep the peace yet his intent was to continue the
attack. I have no bone of contention with you save your ill advised and
honestly misguided attempt to save a shark from drowning.
I applaude your research on chess and education. I should like to read
it sometime. This is a public olive branch I have no argument with you
other than whom you choose to ,in my opinion,blindly defend.
Rob.
Such a fixation cannot be healthy.

I am sorry, but my description of you as immature was actually too
kind. Rob Mitchell, another resident of the United States of the
Offended. What he doesn't understand, he finds offensive. And such
things must be purged and cleansed until they are, let's say,
lily-white?

Rob wrote:
This is a public olive branch I have no argument with you
other than whom you choose to ,in my opinion,blindly defend.

Well, at least one can start from such a statement.

I have no need to defend him, he can do that himself. If he chooses not
to discuss this with you, well, I made my point elsewhere and won't
beat it to death. The whole Nazi thing I just find repulsive, and
sorry, but I had to say that again.

wrote:
Jeesh, Rob, in one post I am a pseudointellectual, and then when I
don't conform to that stereotype, you feel a need to disparage my
education and then drag out a dictionary definition that conveniently
leaves out the one I meant? It's all an argument of convenience for you
in your pursuit of Neil? What in the world does he matter to you?

I mocked him for being an Innes-manque'. Ever since he's trolled me as
an Innes-manque'. Also, I don't think I helped matters by pointing out
Robtroll's self-confession regarding his use of Prozac.

Such a fixation cannot be healthy.

I am sorry, but my description of you as immature was actually too
kind. Rob Mitchell, another resident of the United States of the
Offended. What he doesn't understand, he finds offensive. And such
things must be purged and cleansed until they are, let's say,
lily-white?

Neil,
Again.. when will you retract and recant your comments about your
publisher?

Rob wrote:
I must say I am disappointed at the level of honor in the chess
community. It appears to be rife with pseudohistorical elites who scorn
others who have not committed a greater deal of their lives to studing
the minutae of obscure chess idioms.

If an error is made it is pounced upon and the utterer is mercilessly
attacked continously and maliciously until they stop posting or
contributing to the discourse. These Chess Nazis want you to follow
them in lockstep. Should you not agree, they will use all of their
powers to attampt to destroy you. Most of us outgrow this need well out of
middle school. It is odd that this group seems to have matured not much
beyond this stage.

There will be many who that offense at this post. Those who do then
readily admit they are those of whom I speak. These people are self
important and are of little merit. When will these chess nazis be
driven from our ranks? When will the Hitlers of this group simply self
destruct within the confines of their "cyber bunkers"?

I call for the Chess Nazis to simply begin your own group and leave the
rest of us to think and breath free, unimcumbered under the iron fists
of your ridicule and persicutions for our opinions and ideas.

This post addresses *only* the semantic issue of
the usage of 'chess Nazi'. To what extent, if any,
should the term 'chess Nazi' be considered inappropriate
or offensive?

Given that Rob Mitchell has written 'There will be many
who that (sic) offense at this post', I believe that Rob Mitchell
realized that some readers would regard his usage of
'chess Nazi' as provocative. I believe that Rob Mitchell
intended to write a provocative post. Personally,
I believe that Rob Mitchell could have found a way
to make his intended point(s) without having to use
the term 'chess Nazi'.

Some reader(s) may feel that the term 'chess Nazi'
connotes disrespect to the millions of victims of
Nazi (NSDAP) crimes during 1933-1945.

For better or for worse, however, language usage
does change. While it may have been unthinkable
to use the term 'Nazi' in some popular contexts in
1946, that's no longer the case in 2006.

For example, in the popular American television
situation comedy series 'Seinfield' there was a
character known as the 'Soup Nazi' (the episode
first appeared in 1995). I happen to know that
some Jewish persons watched that episode and
enjoyed it, without believing that 'Seinfield' was
disrespecting the victims of Nazi crimes.

In addition, the term 'Nazi' has entered popular
speech as a description of a person who has
some personal, not necessarily political,
characteristics associated with the Nazis
(1933-1945), particularly with Hitler.
For examples, I have heard some people
make complaints such as "My boss is
a real Nazi! He's forcing me to work
on Saturday." or "My professor is a
real Nazi! His marking is too tough."

As a historian, I regret the term 'Nazi'
has become rather trivialized in some
popular discourse. Yet, as a writer,
I must acknowledge that the practically
accepted usages of 'Nazi' have changed.

Personally, I would not use the term
'chess Nazi', not even in referring to
Klaus Junge (1924-1945).

If the popular American television show 'Seinfield'
can use the term 'soup Nazi', then why would it
be any more offensive for Rob Mitchell to use the
term 'chess Nazi'?

--Nick

Nick wrote:
Rob wrote:
I must say I am disappointed at the level of honor in the chess
community. It appears to be rife with pseudohistorical elites who scorn
others who have not committed a greater deal of their lives to studing
the minutae of obscure chess idioms.

If an error is made it is pounced upon and the utterer is mercilessly
attacked continously and maliciously until they stop posting or
contributing to the discourse. These Chess Nazis want you to follow
them in lockstep. Should you not agree, they will use all of their
powers to attampt to destroy you. Most of us outgrow this need well out of
middle school. It is odd that this group seems to have matured not much
beyond this stage.

There will be many who that offense at this post. Those who do then
readily admit they are those of whom I speak. These people are self
important and are of little merit. When will these chess nazis be
driven from our ranks? When will the Hitlers of this group simply self
destruct within the confines of their "cyber bunkers"?

I call for the Chess Nazis to simply begin your own group and leave the
rest of us to think and breath free, unimcumbered under the iron fists
of your ridicule and persicutions for our opinions and ideas.

This post addresses *only* the semantic issue of
the usage of 'chess Nazi'. To what extent, if any,
should the term 'chess Nazi' be considered inappropriate
or offensive?

Given that Rob Mitchell has written 'There will be many
who that (sic) offense at this post', I believe that Rob Mitchell
realized that some readers would regard his usage of
'chess Nazi' as provocative. I believe that Rob Mitchell
intended to write a provocative post. Personally,
I believe that Rob Mitchell could have found a way
to make his intended point(s) without having to use
the term 'chess Nazi'.

Some reader(s) may feel that the term 'chess Nazi'
connotes disrespect to the millions of victims of
Nazi (NSDAP) crimes during 1933-1945.

For better or for worse, however, language usage
does change. While it may have been unthinkable
to use the term 'Nazi' in some popular contexts in
1946, that's no longer the case in 2006.

For example, in the popular American television
situation comedy series 'Seinfield' there was a
character known as the 'Soup Nazi' (the episode
first appeared in 1995). I happen to know that
some Jewish persons watched that episode and
enjoyed it, without believing that 'Seinfield' was
disrespecting the victims of Nazi crimes.

In addition, the term 'Nazi' has entered popular
speech as a description of a person who has
some personal, not necessarily political,
characteristics associated with the Nazis
(1933-1945), particularly with Hitler.
For examples, I have heard some people
make complaints such as "My boss is
a real Nazi! He's forcing me to work
on Saturday." or "My professor is a
real Nazi! His marking is too tough."

As a historian, I regret the term 'Nazi'
has become rather trivialized in some
popular discourse. Yet, as a writer,
I must acknowledge that the practically
accepted usages of 'Nazi' have changed.

Personally, I would not use the term
'chess Nazi', not even in referring to
Klaus Junge (1924-1945).

If the popular American television show 'Seinfield'
can use the term 'soup Nazi', then why would it
be any more offensive for Rob Mitchell to use the
term 'chess Nazi'?

--Nick


There seems to be a fixation on political correctness
these days.

In terms of communicating his idea, I think the term
"chess Nazi" was useful in getting the point across.

However, the idea itself, that those who do not
agree with the (purportedly) elitist's opinions are attacked
and driven out or silenced, is not necessarily something
which pertains to Nazis any more than to other groups.

For example, the Evans ratpackers uphold this method,
yet no one would accuse them of being Nazis. And how
many times have I seen this method "in action" on TV
programs? Countless times. The standard approach is
to pretend to be having a "fair and balanced" discussion,
where in fact the host "talks over" any undesired comments
by his guests, and harries them in an obvious attempt to
make his (preordained) political points. This is quite an
ugly thing to watch, yet the people in charge are not
exactly Nazis; they're Republicans gone nutso!

I still believe the comment regarding middle school was
wrongheaded; far from failing to develop sufficiently, these
"chess Nazis" have simply developed into something they
shouldn't have, much like a tumor.

Another item I noticed is the, uh, "Jew-centric" approach
to all things Nazi Germany. One poster made several
remarks which seemed to indicate that he believed the
Jews were the only victims in WWII. He simply "forgot"
about all the other groups who were also victimised; for
example, Gypsies (i.e. Roma), Chinese, Russians, etc.
I mention this because even Nick B. followed suit in
discussing whether or not Jewish folk would be offended --
as if that in itself is decisive. There seems to be an idea
floating about that Jews have a lock on all things Nazi,
that nobody else's opinions count. That is discrimination
on the basis of race and/or religion.

-- help bot (race: siliconoid; religion: freewarian)

Greg Kennedy (aka 'help bot') wrote:
Nick wrote:
Rob wrote:
I must say I am disappointed at the level of honor in the chess
community. It appears to be rife with pseudohistorical elites who scorn
others who have not committed a greater deal of their lives to studing
the minutae of obscure chess idioms.

If an error is made it is pounced upon and the utterer is mercilessly
attacked continously and maliciously until they stop posting or
contributing to the discourse. These Chess Nazis want you to follow
them in lockstep. Should you not agree, they will use all of their
powers to attampt to destroy you. Most of us outgrow this need well out of
middle school. It is odd that this group seems to have matured not much
beyond this stage.

There will be many who that offense at this post. Those who do then
readily admit they are those of whom I speak. These people are self
important and are of little merit. When will these chess nazis be
driven from our ranks? When will the Hitlers of this group simply self
destruct within the confines of their "cyber bunkers"?

I call for the Chess Nazis to simply begin your own group and leave the
rest of us to think and breath free, unimcumbered under the iron fists
of your ridicule and persicutions for our opinions and ideas.

This post addresses *only* the semantic issue of
the usage of 'chess Nazi'. To what extent, if any,
should the term 'chess Nazi' be considered inappropriate
or offensive?

Given that Rob Mitchell has written 'There will be many
who that (sic) offense at this post', I believe that Rob Mitchell
realized that some readers would regard his usage of
'chess Nazi' as provocative. I believe that Rob Mitchell
intended to write a provocative post. Personally,
I believe that Rob Mitchell could have found a way
to make his intended point(s) without having to use
the term 'chess Nazi'.

Some reader(s) may feel that the term 'chess Nazi'
connotes disrespect to the millions of victims of
Nazi (NSDAP) crimes during 1933-1945.

For better or for worse, however, language usage
does change. While it may have been unthinkable
to use the term 'Nazi' in some popular contexts in
1946, that's no longer the case in 2006.

For example, in the popular American television
situation comedy series 'Seinfield' there was a
character known as the 'Soup Nazi' (the episode
first appeared in 1995). I happen to know that
some Jewish persons watched that episode and
enjoyed it, without believing that 'Seinfield' was
disrespecting the victims of Nazi crimes.

Greg Kennedy apparently has taken some
exception to what I have written (above).

In addition, the term 'Nazi' has entered popular
speech as a description of a person who has
some personal, not necessarily political,
characteristics associated with the Nazis
(1933-1945), particularly with Hitler.
For examples, I have heard some people
make complaints such as "My boss is
a real Nazi! He's forcing me to work
on Saturday." or "My professor is a
real Nazi! His marking is too tough."

As a historian, I regret the term 'Nazi'
has become rather trivialized in some
popular discourse. Yet, as a writer,
I must acknowledge that the practically
accepted usages of 'Nazi' have changed.

Personally, I would not use the term
'chess Nazi', not even in referring to
Klaus Junge (1924-1945).

If the popular American television show 'Seinfield'
can use the term 'soup Nazi', then why would it
be any more offensive for Rob Mitchell to use the
term 'chess Nazi'?

There seems to be a fixation on political correctness
these days.

In terms of communicating his idea, I think the term
"chess Nazi" was useful in getting the point across.

However, the idea itself, that those who do not
agree with the (purportedly) elitist's opinions are attacked
and driven out or silenced, is not necessarily something
which pertains to Nazis any more than to other groups.

For example, the Evans ratpackers uphold this method,
yet no one would accuse them of being Nazis. And how
many times have I seen this method "in action" on TV
programs? Countless times. The standard approach is
to pretend to be having a "fair and balanced" discussion,
where in fact the host "talks over" any undesired comments
by his guests, and harries them in an obvious attempt to
make his (preordained) political points. This is quite an
ugly thing to watch, yet the people in charge are not
exactly Nazis; they're Republicans gone nutso!

I still believe the comment regarding middle school was
wrongheaded; far from failing to develop sufficiently, these
"chess Nazis" have simply developed into something they
shouldn't have, much like a tumor.

Another item I noticed is the, uh, "Jew-centric" approach
to all things Nazi Germany. One poster made several
remarks which seemed to indicate that he believed the
Jews were the only victims in WWII. He simply "forgot"
about all the other groups who were also victimised; for
example, Gypsies (i.e. Roma), Chinese, Russians, etc.
I mention this because even Nick B. followed suit in
discussing whether or not Jewish folk would be offended --
as if that in itself is decisive. There seems to be an idea
floating about that Jews have a lock on all things Nazi,
that nobody else's opinions count.

I wrote this statement about a 'Seinfield' episode
in which in a character was called the 'Soup Nazi'.

"I happen to know that some Jewish persons watched
that episode and enjoyed it, without believing that
'Seinfield' was disrespecting the victims of Nazi crimes."
--Nick

All that statement (above) means is that some of my
Jewish acquaintances told me that they had watched
that 'Seinfield' episode and enjoyed it, etc.

I know quite well that many non-Jewish persons were
the victims of Nazi crimes. If a Gypsy acquaintance
of mine had told me (which did *not* happen) that he
or she had watched that 'Seinfield' episode and enjoyed
it, then I may have mentioned that in addition.

--Nick

That is discrimination on the basis of race and/or religion.

-- help bot (race: siliconoid; religion: freewarian)

Nick wrote:
Greg Kennedy (aka 'help bot') wrote:


Another mindless PARRot. Larry Parr sings that I
am Vince Hart/Greg Kennedy, and all the mice follow.


If the popular American television show 'Seinfield'
can use the term 'soup Nazi', then why would it
be any more offensive for Rob Mitchell to use the
term 'chess Nazi'?


One possibility here would be that this TV show is
written/directed/produced/or acted by Jews, who are
sometimes considered to have special immunity from
being accused of anti-Semitism. (For example, Mel
Brooks has made some movies which are chock-full
of jokes about the Jews, yet no one complains or
makes the typical accusations, as it would seem he
is immune. My conclusion is that Mel Brooks is
probably Jewish, which would also explain the oddball
appearance of many such jokes where they otherwise
make no sense.)



Another item I noticed is the, uh, "Jew-centric" approach
to all things Nazi Germany. One poster made several
remarks which seemed to indicate that he believed the
Jews were the only victims in WWII. He simply "forgot"
about all the other groups who were also victimised; for
example, Gypsies (i.e. Roma), Chinese, Russians, etc.
I mention this because even Nick B. followed suit in
discussing whether or not Jewish folk would be offended --
as if that in itself is decisive. There seems to be an idea
floating about that Jews have a lock on all things Nazi,
that nobody else's opinions count.

I wrote this statement about a 'Seinfield' episode
in which in a character was called the 'Soup Nazi'.


Precisely.


"I happen to know that some Jewish persons watched
that episode and enjoyed it, without believing that
'Seinfield' was disrespecting the victims of Nazi crimes."
--Nick

All that statement (above) means is that some of my
Jewish acquaintances told me that they had watched
that 'Seinfield' episode and enjoyed it, etc.


Right. And all my comment meant was that all the
other commentators here seem to have focused only
upon what Jews might think, or be offended by. Not
one has yet talked about the other groups, what they
might or might not be offended by. The handicapped,
Gypsies, homosexuals -- not one of these was actually
considered, only the Jews.


I know quite well that many non-Jewish persons were
the victims of Nazi crimes.


Misses my point entirely; obviously, I was already
aware of this. Nick B. has made countless posts here in
which he talked extensively about war crimes and such.
In reaction, the "conservatives" (I'm being generous here)
whine that this is off-topic.


If a Gypsy acquaintance
of mine had told me (which did *not* happen) that he
or she had watched that 'Seinfield' episode and enjoyed
it, then I may have mentioned that in addition.


My comments in no way referred to what, say, Nick,
"may have mentioned". On the contrary, my comments
referred to what Nick and others in fact *did* mention.

It was simply noting the fact that everyone here (but me)
appears to have taken a "Jew-centric" approach, that's
all. Nazis vs. Jews: this is an oversimplification, and as
such, it victimizes the other groups by ignoring them as
if they were not relevant or did not even exist. The same
thing happens all the time in the mass media -- the Jews
take the limelight and the other victims are ignored. It
makes you wonder, just who controls the media?


-- help bot