"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Below is a perfect example of how a dishonest troll behaves. I heas
nothing to contribute to an discussion so he goes to a discussion group
unrelated to the one in which he is posting in order to make a negative
remark about someone he does not like.

It is just that kind of pattern of behaivor that got Brennen caught in
my "Prozac" trap.

If you have nothing to contribute of a constructive nature, please
remain silent.

It also depends where you read and how specifically. If you never heard of
'a Latin' perhaps you will adopt the Englishism, 'Latinist', which of course
ain't Latin.

I don't think our Neil went to Oxford! He will like the early C20th
formations utising ~ist, as in Arabist. Its quite respectable to do so, but
to run around newsgroups saying it is the only formation is a bit childish
really, especially since the conservative pile of the O.E.D. lists the word.

I presume neither our Neil nor his friends elsewhere have read O'Brian or
writing around 1800 either, since Maturin is quite happy to use the term,
not for doctors as such, but to differentiate clerics who speak some Latin,
and other natural philosophers, since it is a necessary to know if you can
engage someone in what was then an international language. In medicine it
often distinguished the degree of the medico, anything from butcher
[literally] up.

Phil

Rob

The Historian wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:58 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
...or even
opportunity, which is a sociology.

"_A_ sociology"? Hmmm, when I got my degree in sociology, we just
referred to it as "sociology," with no preceding article, indefinite or
otherwise. And while "opportunity" was definitely a factor to be
considered in certain sociological situations, it did not itself
constitute "a sociology."

Innes also thinks it's proper to call a Latinist "a Latin." See below.
*******************
Innes:
As I understand him, Peter Groves is a Latin.

Dr. Peter Groves:
Well, I have a Belgian grandmother,

Innes:
Is that at all like a Dutch uncle?

Dr. Peter Groves:
I realise that your knowledge of English is somewhat rudimentary: we
mean
by
"a Latin" someone whose native tongue is derived from Latin.

Innes:
Actually 'a Latin' is someone who has the language and is common as
muck
parlance for the past 250 years.

Alan Jones:
That's a sense unknown to OED. Someone who "has the language" is a
Latinist,
particularly if he or she can write and perhaps speak it confidently.
OED
also has "Latiner" for that sense and for a student of Latin, but I've
never
seen it outside the dictionary.

Dr. David Webb:
It is generally futile to try to divine what Mr. Innes means by a
word, but I am guessing that he thinks that your academic specialty is
Latin. Mr. Innes seems to believe that you are a professional
Latinist.
He appears to be blithely unaware that you hold a post in an English
department, that you are an Early Modern specialist, and that your
Ph.D.
studies dealt with Shakespeare; perhaps he is also unaware that a great
many scholars know Latin regardless of their professional specialty.

**************
I think Phil knows as much about sociology as he does about Spanish,
or "Andean" as he calls it.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Help bot: I find it interesting that
you like to quote other writers, but are unwilling to back
up their claims with anything substantive.
I do not have any database of grandmaster games, nor
Chessbase or any of its rivals.

So then what sources of evidence *do* you have, Greg? You don't seem
to have any books,


In the immortal words of Louis Blair, you certainly
do not have any quote of me saying that I (or this
other fellow, who BTW, I happen to know had some
'cause he sold them at tournaments) have no chess
books. This remark, I take it, was pure invention,
backed up with nothing but hot air. (If I wanted hot
air, I would pry open the mouth of IM Innes and let
spew forth what may! Stand clear!!)



and now you don't have any databases.

This sounds suspiciously like an accusation of my
having shifted ground. In fact, this bot hast not claimed to
have had any chess databases whatever. (And this is the
second time I have so informed you.)



At best you
seem to have just dim memories of having read something somewhere.

Right. I have not studied chess in many years.


You claim that quotes from respected historians

Nick Bourbaki, is that you? This complete reliance
upon others' thinking gave you away!


are not "anything
substantive," yet you offer no alternative.


You clearly have trouble reading my posts, for I
gave precisely that in my last in this thread.


Merely to denigrate my sources

What's this? IMO, your source did the job all by
himself. His bloviating is what got him into a fine mess,
not me, nor Stanley Laurel. The fact that you chose not
to argue the point itself speaks volumes. Instead, like an
Evans ratpacker, you attacked the messenger.



while offering none in return is no better than John Cleese's
automatic gainsaying in the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch.


Running away by changing the subject. I happen to
know that Stan Laurel was not even in that sketch!

Actually although I have seen this sketch mentioned
here before, I am not familiar with it. I have seen a few
of their movies, however. (Call me hard to please, but
I find their acting skills to be ordinary, *some* of the
humor not-so-funny, but they get points for originality).


You have an unfortunate history of making claims based on nothing.


I should say that this may well sum up your
over-reliance upon Mr. Coles' bloviations.


have not forgotten the time you blared that I had slagged all of Edward
Lasker's books.

Of course, you have no quote of me ever doing any
such thing. I think what is going on here, is that an
evil, mindless droid has taken over and is using the
account of Taylor Kingston to make a fool of him.
(Possibly the same guy who earned an embarassing
1300 rating under your name at GetClub. I suspect it
was probably Larry Parr.)


I never did.

I believe you. (I don't even know what "slagging" is,
but it sounds dreadful.)


Your heart generally seems to be in the right place here


When I last met the great Oz, he informed me that
bots don't really have hearts, but he gave me a nice
timepiece in the shape of a heart.



-- you don't buy much of Parr's, Innes', or Sloan's nonsense.

Once in a great while, IM Innes will write something
of value in an intelligible manner (i.e. in real English),
but rarely about *chess*.



But your head is not always in your arguments.

Perhaps if you put forth the effort to read what I
actually wrote, you wouldn't get so mixed up about
it. The key here is to *independently* evaluate
exactly what Mr. Coles said, and consider what
evidence he gave to support it. The evidence I
gave poked a gaping hole right through his airy
bloviations. (Alekhine was *not* bereft of ideas,
nor in any "desert" when it came to positions
other than hypermodern ones. This Coles fellow
was off his rocker on this point.)

-- help bot

Who is Jacob Elson?

IN TK's earlier post, he mentioned famous player's
such as Nimzowitch and Reti, then went on to add
Max Euwe as being among the hypermodern players,
which I find strange. Never before have I seen Euwe's
name listed among them, and when TK quoted some
of Mr. Coles' "reasoning" I poked a giant hole therein.

At this point, Mr. Kingston "challenged" me to show
a statistical proof, obviously forgetting that the claim
by Mr. Coles is the one which is being shot down. I
have not made any declaration that, say, Max Euwe
was *not* a hypermodern. On the contrary, it is the
bloviating-windbag claim that Alekhine was somehow
lost in a desert, which I contest. I say he was fruitful
in BOTH classical and hypermodern positions, while
TK has hidden behind the skirts of one Mr. Coles,
who wrote that he would have died of thirst, but for
the miracle of hypermodernism -- or some such
nonsense.

-- help bot

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Nov 13, 8:26 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Did you in your course always have to write
'sociological factor'?

When it was appropriate. "Sociology" refers to the science as a
whole, not to factors it takes into account. To call differential
opportunity "a sociology" is like calling atomic number "a chemistry"
or the diameter of a planet "an astronomy."

i note that 'differential opportunity' has all of 9 syllables, whereas 'a
sociology' has just 6, and that they are not in fact synonymous since
opportunity is a conditional factor, but i will let that pass - [ just in
passing, did you really not have a term for a constituent element that was
not a specific conditional, ie, with no emphasis, such as 'opportunity'?]


I see you called me a liar for /asking you/ about your chess gene, as if
you
never mentioned the subject.

I have explicitly denied the existence of a "chess gene." I call you
a liar for attributing the term to me, instead of owning up to the fact
that it's your idea.

good grief! except that you wrote this idea first? it was, i now understand,
yet another analogy, but not evidently so when i read it. when you intend
analogy you write as you did above, using 'like', for example.

For someone who insists on people "owning their
words," you seem particularly eager to deny ownership of these.

Kingston should read de Groot or Gardner or Ornstien. Then he would
discover that without the need for eugenic ideas,

Phil, no one but you has used the word "eugenic" in this thread.

Taylor, no one but you doesn't understand the name given to gene studies.
See the '~gen~' in there?

Our Phil continues to wallow in semantic confusion. The proper term
for the science of gene studies is *_genetics_*.

In contrast, Webster defines the term "eugenics" as "the study of
methods of protecting and improving the quality of the human race by
selective breeding." It is a term greatly discredited and disgraced by
its association with social, national, and racial prejudice, Nazism
being the most extreme example.

Of course the Nazi's degraded all sorts of things - and Hitler was a
vegetarian. Neverthless, quantities of non-facist dictators are yet
vegetarian.

I had the clear impression that you were talking eugenics by the definition
you give above, supported by your earlier term -natural talent- and I
wondered how you should have combined these two ideas. perhaps had you
written more, then it would have been clear, but there was no salacious
sense of nazi orientation in my questions to you

i wondered how come you had nothing to say on people who actually conducted
substantial studies on chess? of course, if you were not familiar with them
then your analogy was merely specious

TO THE CHESS...

It has no part in the question of
whether chess skill may depend in part on inborn potential.

i don't know what these curious expressions can possibly mean. what is your
sense of this word "inborn"? is it a synonym for 'implicate' in Bohm's
sense? or are you deliberately chosing a biological reference?

i also don't understand what is meant by 'it has no part of the question' -
since there are in fact very interesting factors of people's native genius
which seems 'hard-wired', to use a phrase, and are exampled by Gardner.

a) de Groot's material was pioneering, and very important for chess, and
comprised both psychological and sociological appreciations.

b) Gardner's was a pioneering study in cognitive psychology, now well
accepted by the mainstream, and who utilised chess to illustrate an
important aspect of intelligence and memory.

c) Robt. Ornstein is a neuroscientist who has written particularly well
about hemispheric factors in the brain

Thank you for this information. Do any of their works discuss the
difference between innate abilities and acquired knowledge?

Yes - all.

Did they
conduct or cite any studies indicating that all people are either
basically equal in their potential chess ability,

Yes, the first two conducted studies, and certainly did not conclude that
all people are basically equal in their potential chess abilities, nor any
other abilitiesd!

Both are heavily studied, and both rather controversial in fact. The sheer
quantity of Gardner's material at Harvard, plus its extrapolation into
explanations and further studies, strongly engages educators. Though de
Groot's work is less known, it is even less appreciated since what it
suggests of chess players is something of a taboo to normative educational
philosophy!

or that they vary
significantly? If not, they do not seem all that relevant to the issue
at hand.

I am not sure from your writing where you have your hand, but Gardner's work
is becoming entirely central to the entire educational establishment in the
united states as perhaps the most critical single body of work that informs
our ideas of learning and talent.

Phil Innes

On Nov 14, 1:56 am, "help bot" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
I have not forgotten the time you blared that I had slagged all of Edward
Lasker's books.

Of course, you have no quote of me ever doing any
such thing.

I must say, I love Google's search function. Try this, Greg, posted
by you 27 November 2001:

"For example, a book review page by Taylor Kingston states flatly
that ALL of Ed Lasker's books are bad!"

Please don't become like Phil Innes, where you deny one day things
you said the day before. I realize the post in question is from five
years ago, so maybe you just forgot. But it could be an early sign of
incipient Innes-Alzheimer syndrome. Take care.

"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

Snipped

Actually - these are very good questions, though I doubt you will like the
responses I repeat below produced by Gardner and de Groot.

The discussion on "inate talent" makes me wonder what ability
translated best to chess play?

To take these one at a time:-

Would one best be suited with a photographic memory

(a) That's the fascinating one - and the answer appears to be 'no, not
memory as we know it'. The difficulty is with the idea of concrete images
and 'photography' as a concrete visual form. Adrian de Groot says that
chessplayers do not have concrete spatial memories, like an artist/painter
for example. What they 'see' [if that term can be properly used] is not
dependent on visualising a form.

Think of that a moment. Its a simple statement, but a bit mind boggling,
since what /are/ they doing?

de Groot says the perception is instead, 'abstact' spatial awareness, to
which he added the word 'dynamic'. As if the player sensed not the image,
but the force of the pieces operating together, and then moving together to
create a new web of forces. Use the Force, Luke!

(b) It interests me that when people are asked to describe subtle factors
[though potent ones] there is a tendancy to describe things in a way that
others will easily understand - using common metaphors instead of
descriptors or at least something common to other people's experience, but
this may be an unintended deception to the actual activity; the metaphor of
'seeing' replaces the actual activity. It is also true that those who have a
gift for chess may not understand it well enough to speak intelligently
about it other than by metaphor!

(c) It was therefore interesting to ask Adorjan an open question on this
subject, anbd also the specific suggestion that at GM level of play 'looking
ahead was like a video camera on fast-forward'. His answer was the
facinating,

'I do not see the board. I do not see the pieces."

And I think I wrote before that he used a counter-analogy [but still
/consciously/ using an analogy, rather than a description] of the piano
player's knowledge of the strength of the 10,000th note in a sequence.

(d) one more fly in the ointment is an emphasis made by de Groot about
'master play' [nb!] that players unconsciously [nb!] acquired 70,000
patterns [nb! patterns not positions]. He also remarked that master players
had superior memory for positions which were legal than non-masters and
non-chess players, but for positions which were not legal [ie, random piece
placement on the board] they had no particular superior memory for chess
pieces, or for anything else!

or would an ability
to reason and logically think be a greater help?

de Groot again identified the left brain [nb!] linear processing [or logical
extrapolation] as a /necessary/ ingredient to the abstract spatial awarness
[right brain], otherwise nothing in particular is manifest. He said for
master play [nb!] both are essential.

sorry to make all those emphasies with [nb!] but when on the rare occassions
these matters are reported, the very distinctions he made are often glossed
over, to be either generalised so that these comments appear to represent
all chess players, or his statement of integrated right and left brain
functions are ignored

Perhaphs a creative
mind is advantageous in playing?

who will study the merits of 'creativity' versus pure aggression, eg ?

are both combined like a choreology, but also a war game? what other factors
are there in the mix?

If we decide which traits are "learnable"

Even that is an unwarranted assumption. The greatest heresy of de Groot's
study indicates that master chess may not be 'learnable' at all. Its
necessary to make a distinction and a further emphasis here, since chess to
some level may be acquired by rote learning, and all sorts of memorizations
and lots of coca cola!

But is master chess learnable? De Groot concluded that he could not discern
even about masters themselves if 'learning' played any part in their
achievement, or if, eg, they would have attained their level by simply
playing chess and working it out for themselves.

and which are purely
attributable to some genetic annomaly we could decide the best ways to
develop grandmasters.

I think de Groot is unpopular because he does not conclude that for a
certain level of achievement anything much is known! and even less, that it
is learnable! What is suggested by his study is to pay greater attention to
the individual player and to surface and identify what talent they have /in
potential/, and combine that with the means to express the talent. This idea
has been much expanded by Gardner in his work on multiple intelligences -
and interestingly so for us chess players since he used chess to example one
of them.

As a discipline, I think the realm is cognitive psychology, and surely more
studies are indicated. What inhibits real study seems to be a collection of
ideas we have that we tell each other are true, but really raise more
questions than they can answer, while obscuring a more primary complexity.
Lorenz said this [rightly, IMO] about school-of-Freud psychology - too many
ideas and too little observation.

Although Gardner's work is now main-streamed in the educational market,
these 'right-brain genius factors' are very esoteric considerations when
very large chunks of the scholastic community cannot express anything from
their left brain processing functions as math or English sentences.

Now! I provoke the reason why with a question of my own: Are people becoming
progressivley lazy at basic academic competencies, since there is nothing
bital in them with which they are connected to stimulate them to want to
work it out in proper sequential ways so as to communicate successfully with
the world?

All your questions are good ones that really are not answered well, and
understood less.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Rob

Its the Hastings Defense!

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

Please don't become like Phil Innes, where you deny one day things
you said the day before. I realize the post in question is from five
years ago, so maybe you just forgot. But it could be an early sign of
incipient Innes-Alzheimer syndrome. Take care.

Shoot the messenger in the Nottingham! That'll teach anybody to talk chess
with Kingston!

What a 7/8th waste of time.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

Snipped

Actually - these are very good questions, though I doubt you will like the
responses I repeat below produced by Gardner and de Groot.

The discussion on "inate talent" makes me wonder what ability
translated best to chess play?

To take these one at a time:-

Would one best be suited with a photographic memory

(a) That's the fascinating one - and the answer appears to be 'no, not
memory as we know it'. The difficulty is with the idea of concrete images
and 'photography' as a concrete visual form. Adrian de Groot says that
chessplayers do not have concrete spatial memories, like an artist/painter
for example. What they 'see' [if that term can be properly used] is not
dependent on visualising a form.

Think of that a moment. Its a simple statement, but a bit mind boggling,
since what /are/ they doing?

de Groot says the perception is instead, 'abstact' spatial awareness, to
which he added the word 'dynamic'. As if the player sensed not the image,
but the force of the pieces operating together, and then moving together to
create a new web of forces. Use the Force, Luke!

(b) It interests me that when people are asked to describe subtle factors
[though potent ones] there is a tendancy to describe things in a way that
others will easily understand - using common metaphors instead of
descriptors or at least something common to other people's experience, but
this may be an unintended deception to the actual activity; the metaphor of
'seeing' replaces the actual activity. It is also true that those who have a
gift for chess may not understand it well enough to speak intelligently
about it other than by metaphor!

(c) It was therefore interesting to ask Adorjan an open question on this
subject, anbd also the specific suggestion that at GM level of play 'looking
ahead was like a video camera on fast-forward'. His answer was the
facinating,

'I do not see the board. I do not see the pieces."

And I think I wrote before that he used a counter-analogy [but still
/consciously/ using an analogy, rather than a description] of the piano
player's knowledge of the strength of the 10,000th note in a sequence.

(d) one more fly in the ointment is an emphasis made by de Groot about
'master play' [nb!] that players unconsciously [nb!] acquired 70,000
patterns [nb! patterns not positions]. He also remarked that master players
had superior memory for positions which were legal than non-masters and
non-chess players, but for positions which were not legal [ie, random piece
placement on the board] they had no particular superior memory for chess
pieces, or for anything else!

or would an ability
to reason and logically think be a greater help?

de Groot again identified the left brain [nb!] linear processing [or logical
extrapolation] as a /necessary/ ingredient to the abstract spatial awarness
[right brain], otherwise nothing in particular is manifest. He said for
master play [nb!] both are essential.

sorry to make all those emphasies with [nb!] but when on the rare occassions
these matters are reported, the very distinctions he made are often glossed
over, to be either generalised so that these comments appear to represent
all chess players, or his statement of integrated right and left brain
functions are ignored

Perhaphs a creative
mind is advantageous in playing?

who will study the merits of 'creativity' versus pure aggression, eg ?

are both combined like a choreology, but also a war game? what other factors
are there in the mix?

If we decide which traits are "learnable"

Even that is an unwarranted assumption. The greatest heresy of de Groot's
study indicates that master chess may not be 'learnable' at all. Its
necessary to make a distinction and a further emphasis here, since chess to
some level may be acquired by rote learning, and all sorts of memorizations
and lots of coca cola!

But is master chess learnable? De Groot concluded that he could not discern
even about masters themselves if 'learning' played any part in their
achievement, or if, eg, they would have attained their level by simply
playing chess and working it out for themselves.

and which are purely
attributable to some genetic annomaly we could decide the best ways to
develop grandmasters.

I think de Groot is unpopular because he does not conclude that for a
certain level of achievement anything much is known! and even less, that it
is learnable! What is suggested by his study is to pay greater attention to
the individual player and to surface and identify what talent they have /in
potential/, and combine that with the means to express the talent. This idea
has been much expanded by Gardner in his work on multiple intelligences -
and interestingly so for us chess players since he used chess to example one
of them.

As a discipline, I think the realm is cognitive psychology, and surely more
studies are indicated. What inhibits real study seems to be a collection of
ideas we have that we tell each other are true, but really raise more
questions than they can answer, while obscuring a more primary complexity.
Lorenz said this [rightly, IMO] about school-of-Freud psychology - too many
ideas and too little observation.

Although Gardner's work is now main-streamed in the educational market,
these 'right-brain genius factors' are very esoteric considerations when
very large chunks of the scholastic community cannot express anything from
their left brain processing functions as math or English sentences.

Now! I provoke the reason why with a question of my own: Are people becoming
progressivley lazy at basic academic competencies, since there is nothing
bital in them with which they are connected to stimulate them to want to
work it out in proper sequential ways so as to communicate successfully with
the world?

All your questions are good ones that really are not answered well, and
understood less.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Rob


I think the answers were good ones. (At least you answered them!)

Rob

Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:26:37 GMT):
7 ... I see you called me a liar for /asking you/ about your
7 chess gene, as if you never mentioned the subject. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (13 Nov 2006 08:29:44 -0800):
7 ... I have explicitly denied the existence of a "chess gene."
7 I call you a liar for attributing the term to me, instead of
7 owning up to the fact that it's your idea. For someone who
7 insists on people "owning their words," you seem
7 particularly eager to deny ownership of these.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:22:27 GMT):

7 ... good grief! except that you wrote this idea first? ...

_
Some of what actually happened:
_
"... While Alekhine did have strong natural
talent, it was probably not nearly as great as
Capablanca's or Reshevsky's, probably also
below that of Lasker, ..." - Taylor Kingston
(9 Nov 2006 11:28:22 -0800)
_
"'Probably not nearly as great' but without
saying why? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
09 Nov 2006 21:38:15 GMT)
_
"Since natural talent by definition is inborn,
it goes without saying that the 'why' lies
mainly in the genes. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(9 Nov 2006 14:22:23 -0800)
_
"What's this now? The other guys had a
Chess gene? ) ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,
10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT)
_
"... There is no such thing as a 'chess gene,'
any more than there is a gene for playing
the piano, solving complex mathematical
theorems, reading printed English, firing a
rifle, playing basketball, or any number of
other human skills, both mental and physical.
However, a person's genetic endowment
_can_ have a definite effect on these and
other skills. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(10 Nov 2006 13:01:10 -0800)
_
"... At least Kingston admits that 'environmental
factors' are also in play with his, own words,
chess gene ..." - Phil Innes (Sun, 12 Nov 2006
23:58:28 GMT)
_
"Phil Innes introduced the idea of a 'chess gene'
to this thread, yet he keeps trying to attribute it
to me. Bizarre, and completely dishonest, ..."
- Taylor Kingston (12 Nov 2006 17:18:02 -0800)

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (13 Nov 2006 08:29:44 -0800):
7 Our Phil continues to wallow in semantic confusion. The
7 proper term for the science of gene studies is *_genetics_*.
7 In contrast, Webster defines the term "eugenics" as "the
7 study of methods of protecting and improving the quality
7 of the human race by selective breeding." ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:22:27 GMT):

7 ... I had the clear impression that you were talking eugenics
7 by the definition you give above, supported by your earlier
7 term -natural talent- ...

_
Phil Innes produces no TK quote that gives the "impression"
that TK had been "talking" about the study of methods of
protecting and improving the quality of the human race by
selective breeding. As far as I can tell, it was Phil Innes who
brought "eugenics" into the discussion.
_
"... To repeat my analogy, there is no doubt
that height is affected by genetic factors, and
that height has considerable bearing on
basketball skills. That is not at all the same
thing as claiming there is a 'basketball gene.' ..."
- Taylor Kingston (10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800)
_
"... That's true - its a sociological factor to do
with slavery, mainly of black people, who were
bred in a eugenics program to breed and be big
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:00:31 GMT)
_
"Hmm, our Phil seems eager to share Jimmy
the Greek's fate. Well, I leave him to it." - Taylor
Kingston (10 Nov 2006 16:24:27 -0800)
_
"... Kingston should read de Groot or Gardner or
Ornstien. Then he would discover that without the
need for eugenic ideas, ..." - Phil Innes (Sun,
12 Nov 2006 23:58:28 GMT)
_
"... Phil, no one but you has used the word
'eugenic' in this thread. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(12 Nov 2006 17:18:02 -0800)
_
"... Taylor, no one but you doesn't understand
the name given to gene studies. See the '~gen~'
in there? ..." - Phil Innes (Mon, 13 Nov 2006
13:26:37 GMT)
_
"... Our Phil continues to wallow in semantic
confusion. The proper term for the science of
gene studies is *_genetics_*. In contrast,
Webster defines the term 'eugenics' as 'the
study of methods of protecting and improving
the quality of the human race by selective
breeding.' ..." - Taylor Kingston (13 Nov 2006
08:29:44 -0800)

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 14, 1:56 am, "help bot" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
I have not forgotten the time you blared that I had slagged all of Edward
Lasker's books.

Of course, you have no quote of me ever doing any
such thing.

I must say, I love Google's search function. Try this, Greg, posted
by you 27 November 2001:

"For example, a book review page by Taylor Kingston states flatly
that ALL of Ed Lasker's books are bad!"

Please don't become like Phil Innes, where you deny one day things
you said the day before. I realize the post in question is from five
years ago, so maybe you just forgot. But it could be an early sign of
incipient Innes-Alzheimer syndrome. Take care.


I find no such quote by me. Here is an interesting
question: does your Web page state that all of Edward
Lasker's books are bad, and if not, did this fellow fail
to provide a link to the quote, as you did to "mine"?

-- help bot