helpbot wrote (1 Nov 2006 23:32:08 -0800):

7 ... Harry seemed to "know" that the first man would
7 not take up his challenge, and that the second one
7 would. How could he "know" such things unless
7 it was due to (successful) stereotyping? ...

_
I am not sure, but I had the impression that, although
the words were the same both times, the delivery was
slightly different the second time. It seemed to me
that, at the end, Harry was being deliberately more
taunting as if he was trying to goad the guy into
going for his gun.

On Nov 2, 2:32 am, "help bot" wrote:
The Dirty Harry movie seemed to make a racist
statement by portraying Harry's first, cowardly
opponent as an illiterate Black man, while the
second, admittedly foolish man, who was strong
and brave was a literate White. In addition, Harry
seemed to "know" that the first man would not
take up his challenge, and that the second one
would. How could he "know" such things unless
it was due to (successful) stereotyping?

He "knew" mainly because of (successful) screenwriting.

Louis Blair wrote:
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe. googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Taylor Kingston"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: The Kingston Files
Date: 2 Nov 2006 05:59:18 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 24
Message-ID: . com
References: ZXR1h.5655$pU3.1248@trndny08
.com
nZ02h.4726$WB4.4244@trndny04
. com
if32h.5156$OK3.2588@trndny09
.com
zx72h.5565$dx4.1663@trndny05
om
. com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.49.184.240
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162475962 27463 127.0.0.1 (2 Nov 2006
13:59:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:59:22 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: . com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0;
AT&T CSM6.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=24.49.184.240;
posting-account=EiI5yw0AAACV86a5CGNajLjBxzUoGk-N



On Nov 2, 1:09 am, "Matt Nemmers" wrote:
Louis Blair wrote:
This incident (particularly the Phil Innes notion of "permission"
to publicize private communication) would be worth keeping
in mind for those who might be thinking about having a private
conversation with Phil Innes in the future.






Louis, TK gave him permission.



Not so, Matt. I have never given Innes permission to publish any
private correspondence.



Besides, I have a feeling that nothing
WILL be posted because the emails probably do not exist.






Innes and I used to correspond fairly often, before he became
irrationally hostile. He may have saved e-mails of mine from back then;
I probably have a few of his, too. However, he cannot possibly have any
e-mails of mine that prove his accusations of book-banning and the
like, because I never wrote any such. In that sense, the e-mails Phil
claims to have do not exist.


Okay. I know Phil will not publish anything he feels honor bound not to
publish, even something from an enemy. If he gets permission to publish
emails he feels prove this(something TK says doesn't exist) will TK
give permission? To me, if I KNEW that something didn't exist I would
say publish away. If I thought there may be something that would prove
me wrong then I would do just as TK has done and hide from the issue.
Matt simply wants to see the proof that TK says isn't there and refuses
to give Phil permission to share publicly.

Chess One wrote:


(Much ad hominem snipped)

When I asked you how many games in a "100-best" a reviewer would need to
play through to reasonably assess the title, you were silent.


Changing the subject seems to be one of your
favorite ploys. Nevertheless, if you want to discuss
this issue it should be kept seperate from your ad
hominem attacks on critics of the Evans ratpackers.

Put another way, you could just start a thread in
which to discuss, say, the art of reviewing chess
books. BTW, your handler seems to have taken a
position on this very issue, exempting TK and
others from being accountable for replaying every
game in a collection before writing a review thereof.

------

One issue I think deserves attention is the idea of
bashing a reviewer for "missing" a refutation, while at
the same time excusing an author for the same. In
one interesting case, a GM author claimed to have
carefully scutinized each of the games *he* selected
for publication, yet he nevertheless overlooked an
obvious double blunder! What makes this case so
interesting is the way in which a certain group of
unscrupulous scumbags then attempted to use this
GM gaffe to spear a hapless 2300+ reviewer -- while
giving their pal, the blind GM, a free pass! I don't
know which is funnier: the GM's own claims regarding
the care he took in creating that book, or the fact that
those clowns actually believed nobody would see
through their childish ploy.

If only things were different. If only chess books
could be written by sincere, hard-working experts who
were willing to earn their keep, instead of a select
group of lazy (but titled) dunces, just for money.

-- help bot

Rob wrote:
Does my getting Dr. Blair to "give up" count here? :-)

Towards what, Rob? Your ability to frustrate Dr. Blair demonstrates
stamina, but not a talent for effective debate.

Does it matter how you win a battle, Matt? An ugly win is still a win!
:-)

LOL. Rob, you misunderstand.

You can't 'win' a Usenet battle against Dr. Blair. His pen will cut
(and-paste) you to death. He's resilient and extremely logical, though
sometimes too literal. That said, it's impossible to 'win' an argument
against him because he's the Google Guru and will dig up a quote you
posted five years ago and use it to contradict your latest stance. His
fuse is long and his patience is unmatched -- you can't 'win'.

You can, however, draw him by getting him to abandon an argument or cut
off contact as he did with you. To my knowledge, you are the first on
RGCP to have done this, so congratulations on your half point.

Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!b28g2000cwb .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Taylor Kingston"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: The Kingston Files
Date: 2 Nov 2006 17:04:45 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 15
Message-ID: .com
References: ZXR1h.5655$pU3.1248@trndny08
. com

.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.180.245
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162515890 8000 127.0.0.1 (3 Nov 2006
01:04:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 01:04:50 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: .com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0;
AT&T CSM6.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 netcache2 (NetCache NetApp/6.0.4)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=198.96.180.245;
posting-account=EiI5yw0AAACV86a5CGNajLjBxzUoGk-N



On Nov 2, 2:32 am, "help bot" wrote:
The Dirty Harry movie seemed to make a racist
statement by portraying Harry's first, cowardly
opponent as an illiterate Black man, while the
second, admittedly foolish man, who was strong
and brave was a literate White. In addition, Harry
seemed to "know" that the first man would not
take up his challenge, and that the second one
would. How could he "know" such things unless
it was due to (successful) stereotyping?

He "knew" mainly because of (successful) screenwriting.

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:


(Much ad hominem snipped)

When I asked you how many games in a "100-best" a reviewer would need to
play through to reasonably assess the title, you were silent.


Changing the subject seems to be one of your
favorite ploys.

Changing it to chess?

Nevertheless, if you want to discuss
this issue it should be kept seperate from your ad
hominem attacks on critics of the Evans ratpackers.

I'm ready any time you are.

Put another way,

It doesn't need putting umpteen ways, just do it or not.

I read ahead... no responses to my chess questions here.

if you don't want to do it Greg, stop whining that its someone else's fault!

PI

you could just start a thread in
which to discuss, say, the art of reviewing chess
books. BTW, your handler seems to have taken a
position on this very issue, exempting TK and
others from being accountable for replaying every
game in a collection before writing a review thereof.

------

One issue I think deserves attention is the idea of
bashing a reviewer for "missing" a refutation, while at
the same time excusing an author for the same. In
one interesting case, a GM author claimed to have
carefully scutinized each of the games *he* selected
for publication, yet he nevertheless overlooked an
obvious double blunder! What makes this case so
interesting is the way in which a certain group of
unscrupulous scumbags then attempted to use this
GM gaffe to spear a hapless 2300+ reviewer -- while
giving their pal, the blind GM, a free pass! I don't
know which is funnier: the GM's own claims regarding
the care he took in creating that book, or the fact that
those clowns actually believed nobody would see
through their childish ploy.

If only things were different. If only chess books
could be written by sincere, hard-working experts who
were willing to earn their keep, instead of a select
group of lazy (but titled) dunces, just for money.

-- help bot

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chess One wrote:
Dear Taylor Kingston,

Matt Nemmers has led me to believe that he now understands you to say
that
these 20 indicated e-mails do not exist. Is this something you led him to
understand?

Phil Innes

Dang, Phil. It's the EVIDENCE in the emails you keep harping about and
failing to produce. The EVIDENCE that TK said one thing or another
about LE some years ago that so offended you and got you all spun up.
That's what I'm talking about.

You may have emails from him. In fact, you probably do. My contention
is that they EVIDENCE you've claimed to have for so long is
non-existent.

But you don't want to bet, navy. Neither does anyone else. Kingston says it
ain't so, and won't even talk about what any influence would possibly be,
but on the other hand he ain't even goinna give me permission to put just
one of them up which mentions the banning and allowing the authors
themselves to have a word at chesscafe's forum, and what he, TK, thinks of
that because his letter didn't get into CL.

shrug

The fairies did the book-banning,
there is no known reason why.
Just a series of unfortunate conincidences,
and I just swallowed a fly!

Phil I.

Louis, write like a human being by stating your own interest in any subject,
not in long duplicates in this absurd cut and pasted [and false!]
chronology, or stick it up your nose! Phil Innes

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:55:03 GMT):

7 ... I think it will be very interesting to now look at the
7 the contents of just one of these messages - especially
7 the author-banning at chesscafe's forum, which
7 Kingston justified to me BECAUSE Larry Evans
7 wouldn't print his letter. He thought that was fair and
7 reciprocal. ...

_
Is Phil Innes willing to give us the date of this message
so that we will know if we ever see it?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:55:03 GMT):

7 ... Kingston has always induced the market away from
7 writers he doesn't like, ...

_
Can't the same be said of almost any book reviewer?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:55:03 GMT):

7 ... I say he conducted this e-mail campaign while he was
7 at chesscafe as book reviewer, ...

_
What, according to Phil Innes, is the specific goal of this
"campain" that he perceives in the emails?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:55:03 GMT):

7 ... In recording all this nonsense we have Louis convincing
7 Matt that I have a permission.

_
That is categorically false. Phil Innes should apologize promptly.
It was MATT NEMMERS who tried to convince ME that Phil
Innes had permission.
_
"Louis, TK gave him permission. ..." - Matt
Nemmers (1 Nov 2006 22:09:48 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:55:03 GMT):

7 Where did Louis get this idea? Is it, you know, a lie? Certainly
7 a strong enough impression to convince someone else. But
7 enough of a lie so that everyone thinks I am lying. ...

_
Phil Innes produces no quote of me to back up this foolishness.
Here is a quote of Phil Innes:
_
"... Since [TK] says there is nothing actionable in
them, then this seems like a direct permission to
me, especialy since he can remember that, but in
public is 'under-researched' on other things he can't
quite remember. ..." - Phil Innes (Wed, 01 Nov 2006
20:34:39 GMT)

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

On Nov 2, 1:09 am, "Matt Nemmers" wrote:
Louis Blair wrote:
This incident (particularly the Phil Innes notion of "permission"
to publicize private communication) would be worth keeping
in mind for those who might be thinking about having a private
conversation with Phil Innes in the future.

Louis, TK gave him permission.

Not so, Matt. I have never given Innes permission to publish any
private correspondence.

There it is! Blair pretends he never told Matt that Kingston gave permission
to post his material - and now Blair confuses it.

I'll read Blair again in a month, and see if he's sobered up.

Besides, I have a feeling that nothing
WILL be posted because the emails probably do not exist.

Kingston says they exist,

Innes and I used to correspond fairly often, before he became
irrationally hostile. He may have saved e-mails of mine from back then;

I may have? I've been bloody saying so for years.

I probably have a few of his, too. However, he cannot possibly have any
e-mails of mine that prove his accusations of book-banning and the
like, because I never wrote any such. In that sense, the e-mails Phil
claims to have do not exist.

Vaguer-and-out.

PI