LiamToo wrote:
help bot wrote:
I have noticed that many posters seem to have grave
difficulty in spelling Mr. Brennen's last name correctly.

I thought that help bot knows a lot already, but then again, maybe
not. Of course Brennen is the correct spelling. However, if you want
The Historian to put on tilt, simply call him Brennan.

That might fly if, for example, this misspelling were
to occur on its own. But in fact the posting was chock
full of misspellings of a multitude of different names
and common words, which would seem to indicate the
errors are not intentional, but due to ignorance (or
perhaps badly deformed typing fingers). Sometimes
I get the distinct impression that of all the many
posters here, only Phil Innes has made the leap to
using voice-recognition software to create his posts.
(Only he refuses to upgrade from the free, beta trial
version.)

-- help bot

help bot wrote (21 Dec 2006 22:44:19 -0800):
7 ... Dr. Blair's decided tendency to quote *selectively* in
7 order to morph things his own peculiar way. ...
_
I wrote (22 Dec 2006 14:13:55 -0800):
7 No specifics, of course.

_
helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):

7 Is this supposed to be "interpreted" as a denial of some
7 sort? Or merely an observation of my merciful brevity?

_
It is hard to be certain until I know specifically what
helpbot has in mind by "morph"ing. It certainly could
be taken as a reference to dishonest intentions, which
I, of course, deny.

_
helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):

7 I'm sure someone with the time could easily locate a
7 direct quote of Dr. Blair himself asserting that he does
7 not quote *everything*, but only those things he wants
7 to quote. My point is simply that in so doing, the
7 subject is tilted to suit his own peculiar version of "the
7 way it is",

_
Again, this reference to "tilted to suit" a "peculiar version
of 'the way it is'" strikes me as vague wording with
inappropriate connotations of dishonesty. If, however,
helpbot, is only intending to indicate that I sometimes
cause a discussion of a new subject, then I can hardly
object.

_
helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):

7 and this is the result of a style which purports to give
7 a "fair and balanced" overview, when in fact it cannot.
7 ...

_
I have no idea how helpbot got the idea of "a style which
purports to give a 'fair and balanced' overview". It is rare
indeed that I ever attempt an "overview".

_
helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):

7 ... this pretense of objectivity is somewhat annoying
7 given his strong bias to either side shown on various
7 matters. I would much prefer an honest disagreement,
7 to this peculiar style of posting.

_
What "pretense of objectivity"? I am a human being and
subject to the weaknesses that human beings have. I
suspect that helpbot is incorrectly reading a "pretense of
objectivity" into my habit of trying to make sure that people
know EXACTLY what I am writing about, and trying to make
sure that people can easily look up the details for themselves.

Louis Blair wrote:

help bot wrote (21 Dec 2006 22:44:19 -0800):
7 ... Dr. Blair's decided tendency to quote *selectively* in
7 order to morph things his own peculiar way. ...
_
I wrote (22 Dec 2006 14:13:55 -0800):
7 No specifics, of course.

_
helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):

7 Is this supposed to be "interpreted" as a denial of some
7 sort? Or merely an observation of my merciful brevity?

_
It is hard to be certain

Come now. Either Dr. Blair denies quoting "selectively", or
he doesn't. If you don't know, then butt out or find someone
who does. This discussion was between me and him. ;D

until I know specifically what
helpbot has in mind by "morph"ing.

It's a process of change from one thing to another.

For example, I could take some phrase overheard at a
press conference, and twist it to imply that WC Karpov
and Mr. Campomanes had made a "secret deal" in
which the former was to be rescued from certain defeat
at the hands of an invincible GM named Kasparov. It
would be crucial to *omit* anything which might cause
reasonable doubt, for then the whole morphing process
comes to a screeching halt. Note how this process
requires *inclusion* of certain things, AND *omission*
of others. There's the rub.

It certainly could
be taken as a reference to dishonest intentions, which
I, of course, deny.

Well, I doubt that analyzing Dr. Blair's intentions is
really necessary in order to merely observe and comment
on his behavior, especially the "selective" aspect of his
extensive quoting. He is either comprehensive, or not.

helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):

7 I'm sure someone with the time could easily locate a
7 direct quote of Dr. Blair himself asserting that he does
7 not quote *everything*, but only those things he wants
7 to quote.

Please note carefully how no such quote is presented
now, and neither is there any denial that it exists. In sum,
Dr. Blair only presents those quotes he himself finds
handy to support *his* opinions, at his own whims. Which
was precisely my point.


My point is simply that in so doing, the
7 subject is tilted to suit his own peculiar version of "the
7 way it is",

_
Again, this reference to "tilted to suit" a "peculiar version
of 'the way it is'" strikes me as vague wording with
inappropriate connotations of dishonesty.

Hmm. So you dismiss any possibility of a bias which
is not founded in dishonesty? That's odd. To be fair to
Dr. Blair, I think is is unwise to assume dishonesty when
there are other possible explanations.

If, however,
helpbot, is only intending to indicate that I sometimes
cause a discussion of a new subject, then I can hardly
object.

No, I don't think help bot wrote anything remotely like
that. Wherever did you learn to read?


helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):

7 and this is the result of a style which purports to give
7 a "fair and balanced" overview, when in fact it cannot.
7 ...

_
I have no idea how helpbot got the idea of "a style which
purports to give a 'fair and balanced' overview". It is rare
indeed that I ever attempt an "overview".

Really? Help bot must have confused you with some other
poster who quite frequently gives a recounting of what has
been said in any given thread. This "other guy" is possibly
the same one who stalks Sam Sloan this way. Damned
hackers can steal anyone's identity these days!

helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):

7 ... this pretense of objectivity is somewhat annoying
7 given his strong bias to either side shown on various
7 matters. I would much prefer an honest disagreement,
7 to this peculiar style of posting.

_
What "pretense of objectivity"?

The one which you have adopted. Of course, I have
no handy quotes to demonstrate this, and it would
require readers to rely upon their own memories. I am
lazy in this way. (Plus I have no file of handy quotations,
unlike certain others here.)


I am a human being

Not a Blairbot, but a real human? I always suspected
as much, but could not be sure -- until now! I sort of
knew this from the fact that, no matter how advanced,
no artificial intelligence "bot" could so annoyingly
harry the likes of Larry Parr and friends. Look at Zed,
for example. He often changes the subject or responds
with all the intelligence of a piece of granite.

and subject to the weaknesses that human beings have.

So you hang pieces sometimes. Big deal.

I suspect that helpbot is incorrectly reading a "pretense of
objectivity" into my habit of trying to make sure that people
know EXACTLY what I am writing about, and trying to make
sure that people can easily look up the details for themselves.

I have no objection to that. In fact, for example, one Phil
Innes frequently rambles on matters which are nearly -- but
not quite -- impossible to determine the origins of. I find that
to be far from ideal, since (presumably) the purpose is to
communicate something of value.

But I happen to recall many threads where, suddenly, a
post appears which attempts (or pretends) to sum up all
the points which have been made by "both" (assuming a
thread with only two warring tribes) sides. These postings
always seem to assume an air of objectivity and fairness,
and IMO, often do a fine job. But not always. Sometimes
there is something to be said for the side which is in
opposition to that position adopted by Louis Blair, and in
these cases they are not fairly represented, any more
than say, the Evans ratpack would be fairly represented
by sending a drunken Phil Innes to face off against Randy
Bauer. Oh well.

-- help bot

help bot wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
help bot wrote:
I have noticed that many posters seem to have grave
difficulty in spelling Mr. Brennen's last name correctly.

I thought that help bot knows a lot already, but then again, maybe
not. Of course Brennen is the correct spelling. However, if you want
The Historian to put on tilt, simply call him Brennan.

That might fly if, for example, this misspelling were
to occur on its own. But in fact the posting was chock
full of misspellings of a multitude of different names
and common words, which would seem to indicate the
errors are not intentional, but due to ignorance (or
perhaps badly deformed typing fingers). Sometimes
I get the distinct impression that of all the many
posters here, only Phil Innes has made the leap to
using voice-recognition software to create his posts.
(Only he refuses to upgrade from the free, beta trial
version.)

Bruceski!

On Dec 23, 1:33 am, "help bot" wrote:

Anyone who actually read the Morphy play should
know that the actual amount was far in excess of
100,000 dollars.

According to legal documents filed with the Second District Court of
New Orleans on 27 December 1856, the total value of the estate of
Alonzo Morphy, father of Paul, was $146,162.54. This was broken down
into the following categories:

Household furnitu $3,320.75
Slaves: $1,700.00
Cash: $1,518.52
Stock: $44,220.00
Real Estate: $87,925.00
Bills Receivable: $7,478.27

Offhand I don't know exactly how the estate was divided, but I would
imagine Paul, as the only son, got the lion's share. Reuben Fine
(admittedly not the best source) reports Morphy saying his share was
$136,472.23.

Actually, the tool I used is called a help bot rough
guesstimator. This is not unlike the tool used by
Mr. Kingston in selecting the "late 1850's", when of
course he might have looked up the exact date of
Alonzo Morphy's premature demise at the "hands" of
a murderous hat.

My point pertained to the part of the play, reported here, where
Morphy is complaining that he doesn't have enough money to live on.
Since I am not sure on what date the playwright has Morphy voicing that
complaint, I used a less exact date. :-)

help bot wrote (21 Dec 2006 22:44:19 -0800):
7 ... Dr. Blair's decided tendency to quote *selectively* in
7 order to morph things his own peculiar way. ...
_
I wrote (22 Dec 2006 14:13:55 -0800):
7 No specifics, of course.
_
helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):
7 Is this supposed to be "interpreted" as a denial of some
7 sort? Or merely an observation of my merciful brevity?
_
I wrote (23 Dec 2006 20:23:13 -0800):
7 It is hard to be certain until I know specifically what
7 helpbot has in mind by "morph"ing. It certainly could
7 be taken as a reference to dishonest intentions, which
7 I, of course, deny.

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 Come now. Either Dr. Blair denies quoting "selectively",
7 or he doesn't. If you don't know, then butt out or find
7 someone who does. This discussion was between me
7 and him. ;D

_
Previously, I was responding to the charge that I "quote
*selectively* in order to morph things" my "own peculiar
way." If the last nine words are dropped from the charge,
then it becomes a significantly different question. Like
many, including helpbot itself, I, of course, do some
quoting without quoting everything.

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 ... "morph"ing.
7
7 It's a process of change from one thing to another.
7
7 For example, I could take some phrase overheard at a
7 press conference, and twist it to imply that WC Karpov
7 and Mr. Campomanes had made a "secret deal" in
7 which the former was to be rescued from certain defeat
7 at the hands of an invincible GM named Kasparov. It
7 would be crucial to *omit* anything which might cause
7 reasonable doubt, for then the whole morphing process
7 comes to a screeching halt. Note how this process
7 requires *inclusion* of certain things, AND *omission*
7 of others. There's the rub.

_
I deny attempting to deceive people in such a fashion.

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 Well, I doubt that analyzing Dr. Blair's intentions is
7 really necessary in order to merely observe and comment
7 on his behavior, especially the "selective" aspect of his
7 extensive quoting. He is either comprehensive, or not.

_
I do not quote everything. Who does?

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):
7
7 7 I'm sure someone with the time could easily locate a
7 7 direct quote of Dr. Blair himself asserting that he does
7 7 not quote *everything*, but only those things he wants
7 7 to quote.
7
7 Please note carefully how no such quote is presented
7 now, and neither is there any denial that it exists. In sum,
7 Dr. Blair only presents those quotes he himself finds
7 handy to support *his* opinions, at his own whims. Which
7 was precisely my point.

_
Then it was an incorrect point. My choice of quotes is not a
matter of whim and helpbot has no reason to believe otherwise.
I try not to have opinions that are contradicted by the evidence,
and that is why one is not very likely to see me quoting
evidence that contradicts my opinions.

_
helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):
7 I'm sure someone with the time could easily locate a
7 direct quote of Dr. Blair himself asserting that he does
7 not quote *everything*, but only those things he wants
7 to quote. My point is simply that in so doing, the
7 subject is tilted to suit his own peculiar version of "the
7 way it is",
_
I wrote (23 Dec 2006 20:23:13 -0800):
7 Again, this reference to "tilted to suit" a "peculiar version
7 of 'the way it is'" strikes me as vague wording with
7 inappropriate connotations of dishonesty. If, however,
7 helpbot, is only intending to indicate that I sometimes
7 cause a discussion of a new subject, then I can hardly
7 object.

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 Hmm. So you dismiss any possibility of a bias which
7 is not founded in dishonesty? That's odd.

_
That is not what I was writing. I was referring to connotations.

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 To be fair to Dr. Blair, I think is is unwise to assume
7 dishonesty when there are other possible explanations.
7
7 If, however,
7 helpbot, is only intending to indicate that I sometimes
7 cause a discussion of a new subject, then I can hardly
7 object.
7
7 No, I don't think help bot wrote anything remotely like
7 that. Wherever did you learn to read?

_
I have tried to indicate that I find the word choice of helpbot
to be unclear. This is one of the reasons that I encourage
the use of specific examples.

_
helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):
7 and this is the result of a style which purports to give
7 a "fair and balanced" overview, when in fact it cannot.
7 ...
_
I wrote (23 Dec 2006 20:23:13 -0800):
7 I have no idea how helpbot got the idea of "a style which
7 purports to give a 'fair and balanced' overview". It is rare
7 indeed that I ever attempt an "overview".

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 Really? Help bot must have confused you with some
7 other poster who quite frequently gives a recounting of
7 what has been said in any given thread. This "other guy"
7 is possibly the same one who stalks Sam Sloan this way.
7 Damned hackers can steal anyone's identity these days!

_
Can helpbot present specific examples of me claiming to
"give" "a recounting of what has been said in" a "given
thread"?

_
helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):
7 ... this pretense of objectivity is somewhat annoying
7 given his strong bias to either side shown on various
7 matters. I would much prefer an honest disagreement,
7 to this peculiar style of posting.
_
I wrote (23 Dec 2006 20:23:13 -0800):
7 What "pretense of objectivity"? I am a human being and
7 subject to the weaknesses that human beings have. I
7 suspect that helpbot is incorrectly reading a "pretense of
7 objectivity" into my habit of trying to make sure that people
7 know EXACTLY what I am writing about, and trying to make
7 sure that people can easily look up the details for themselves.

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 What "pretense of objectivity"?
7
7 The one which you have adopted. Of course, I have no
7 handy quotes to demonstrate this, and it would require
7 readers to rely upon their own memories. I am lazy in this
7 way. (Plus I have no file of handy quotations, unlike certain
7 others here.) ...

_
I have posted at least six notes in the last day or so, and
helpbot does not have a single example that it wishes to
produce. About how long has it been since helpbot last
thought it perceived a so-called "pretense of objectivity"?
Can it give us any details at all about what caused it to
have this perception of such a "pretense"?

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 I always suspected [you were a human being], but
7 could not be sure -- until now! I sort of knew this from
7 the fact that, no matter how advanced, no artificial
7 intelligence "bot" could so annoyingly harry the likes
7 of Larry Parr and friends. ...
7 ...
7 I have no objection to [your habit of trying to make
7 sure that people know exactly what you are writing
7 about, and trying to make sure that people can easily
7 look up the details for themselves]. ...
7
7 But I happen to recall many threads where, suddenly,
7 a post appears which attempts (or pretends) to sum up all
7 the points which have been made by "both" (assuming a
7 thread with only two warring tribes) sides.

_
Helpbot identifies nothing specific that makes it think
that I was pretending to do such a thing.

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 These postings always seem to assume an air of
7 objectivity and fairness,

_
Helpbot identifies nothing specific that supposedly indicated
such an "air".

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 and IMO, often do a fine job. But not always. Sometimes
7 there is something to be said for the side which is in
7 opposition to that position adopted by Louis Blair, and in
7 these cases they are not fairly represented, any more than ...

_
Not much can be said about this charge until helpbot
indicates a specific example of what it is writing about.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Anyone who actually read the Morphy play should
know that the actual amount was far in excess of
100,000 dollars.

According to legal documents filed with the Second District Court of

[And I suppose you are going to believe *them* over me,
IM Innes and Sam Sloan? :D]

New Orleans on 27 December 1856, the total value of the estate of
Alonzo Morphy, father of Paul, was $146,162.54. This was broken down
into the following categories:

Household furnitu $3,320.75
Slaves: $1,700.00
Cash: $1,518.52
Stock: $44,220.00
Real Estate: $87,925.00
Bills Receivable: $7,478.27

Offhand I don't know exactly how the estate was divided, but I would
imagine Paul, as the only son, got the lion's share. Reuben Fine
(admittedly not the best source) reports Morphy saying his share was
$136,472.23.

Hmm. It would appear that if we were to assume that Mr.
Morphy ruled out selling the mansion (for such reasons as
this might toss his dear mother out into the cold) and
furniture, then he might well be left with stock and receivables
totaling a paltry $50K. Poor man! Which way to the bread line?


Actually, the tool I used is called a help bot rough
guesstimator. This is not unlike the tool used by
Mr. Kingston in selecting the "late 1850's", when of
course he might have looked up the exact date of
Alonzo Morphy's premature demise at the "hands" of
a murderous hat.

My point pertained to the part of the play, reported here, where
Morphy is complaining that he doesn't have enough money to live on.


So did mine! And even though my rough guesstimator was
a tad off (okay, many billions of dollars off), I think it is clear
enough that only a madman would argue he could not live
off the amount quoted (repeatedly) in the play itself. To most
(I should hope), the effects of inflation over the course of so
many years should be obvious. But I admit that in writing
about this, I had not considered the possibility of so large a
portion of Mr. Morphy's inheritance being "tied up" indefinitely
in real estate. Selling a mansion to live in a shanty would, of
course, be out of the question (What would people say?).

Since I am not sure on what date the playwright has Morphy voicing that
complaint, I used a less exact date. :-)

I expect a Sherlock Holmes type could ascertain the
approximate date from the context. As for the rest of us, we
are forced to look at the dollar amount and the other actions
of the main character (I still believe this is part fiction), and
simply conclude that the ranting was intended to convey the
idea that Mr. Morphy had unquestionably gone mad.

On the subject of the (real) value of the US dollar, I would
like to add that, since 1950, the dollar has tumbled some
gigantic percentage which I cannot recall precisely (but it
may well be 70%) versus the world's other major foreign
currencies. I seriously doubt if the chart you used as a
reference took this crucial facet into account.

-- help bot

Louis Blair wrote:

Previously, I was responding to the charge that I "quote
*selectively* in order to morph things" my "own peculiar
way." If the last nine words are dropped from the charge,
then it becomes a significantly different question.

I agree.

Like many, including helpbot itself, I, of course, do some
quoting without quoting everything.

Yes, and who, precisely, decides what Louis Blair will or
will not quote? My view is that it is none other than LB
himself (the rascal)!

helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 ... "morph"ing.
7
7 It's a process of change from one thing to another.
7
7 For example, I could take some phrase overheard at a
7 press conference, and twist it to imply that WC Karpov
7 and Mr. Campomanes had made a "secret deal" in
7 which the former was to be rescued from certain defeat
7 at the hands of an invincible GM named Kasparov. It
7 would be crucial to *omit* anything which might cause
7 reasonable doubt, for then the whole morphing process
7 comes to a screeching halt. Note how this process
7 requires *inclusion* of certain things, AND *omission*
7 of others. There's the rub.

_
I deny attempting to deceive people in such a fashion.

Flat denial noted.


helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 Well, I doubt that analyzing Dr. Blair's intentions is
7 really necessary in order to merely observe and comment
7 on his behavior, especially the "selective" aspect of his
7 extensive quoting. He is either comprehensive, or not.

_
I do not quote everything. Who does?

No one does. That is why only the archives are a true,
"fair and balanced" record.

7 helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):
7
7 7 I'm sure someone with the time could easily locate a
7 7 direct quote of Dr. Blair himself asserting that he does
7 7 not quote *everything*, but only those things he wants
7 7 to quote.
7
7 Please note carefully how no such quote is presented
7 now, and neither is there any denial that it exists. In sum,
7 Dr. Blair only presents those quotes he himself finds
7 handy to support *his* opinions, at his own whims. Which
7 was precisely my point.

_
Then it was an incorrect point. My choice of quotes is not a
matter of whim

Alrighty, but you are picking nits here. It *is* a matter of
your motives and your decisions, conscious or unconscious.
You, and you alone, *choose* what to include, and what not
to include in your postings, whim or no.

and helpbot has no reason to believe otherwise.
I try not to have opinions that are contradicted by the evidence,
and that is why one is not very likely to see me quoting
evidence that contradicts my opinions.

I could well pick nits here, but I won't. Suffice it to say
that the word "evidence" is open to each individual's own
interpretation.

Take Larry Parr, for instance; he would (and does) view
inconclusive, circumstantial evidence as though it were a
smoking gun -- when it suits him whims. And while others
may not be quite so fickle, they are not immune to such
personal biases.

helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):
7 I'm sure someone with the time could easily locate a
7 direct quote of Dr. Blair himself asserting that he does
7 not quote *everything*, but only those things he wants
7 to quote. My point is simply that in so doing, the
7 subject is tilted to suit his own peculiar version of "the
7 way it is",
_
I wrote (23 Dec 2006 20:23:13 -0800):
7 Again, this reference to "tilted to suit" a "peculiar version
7 of 'the way it is'" strikes me as vague wording with
7 inappropriate connotations of dishonesty. If, however,
7 helpbot, is only intending to indicate that I sometimes
7 cause a discussion of a new subject, then I can hardly
7 object.

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 Hmm. So you dismiss any possibility of a bias which
7 is not founded in dishonesty? That's odd.

_
That is not what I was writing.

Nor is what you wrote anything remotely similar to what I
have written. For instance, the phrase "causes a discussion
of a new subject" came from out of nowhere! This is why I
questioned your ability to read.

I was referring to connotations.

While I may well have been referring to selective quoting.

I find it interesting that Louis Blair flatly denies the possibility
of having a "peculiar" outlook on a subject without it necessarily
being the result of dishonesty.

helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 To be fair to Dr. Blair, I think is is unwise to assume
7 dishonesty when there are other possible explanations.
7
7 If, however,
7 helpbot, is only intending to indicate that I sometimes
7 cause a discussion of a new subject, then I can hardly
7 object.
7
7 No, I don't think help bot wrote anything remotely like
7 that. Wherever did you learn to read?

_
I have tried to indicate that I find the word choice of helpbot
to be unclear. This is one of the reasons that I encourage
the use of specific examples.

Suppose I were to state that, IMO, Sam Sloan cannot be
taken seriously, for he has no credibility. Now, would Dr.
Blair insist that each time I voice such an opinion, I must
include with it a proof of some sort? Can I not state an
opinion, and leave it at that? If newbies are not convinced
due to the lack of a proof, they are free to dismiss what I
say as unfounded. This seems fair enough (and what is
more important, it saves me from endless research of what
many here already know from experience).


helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):
7 and this is the result of a style which purports to give
7 a "fair and balanced" overview, when in fact it cannot.
7 ...
_
I wrote (23 Dec 2006 20:23:13 -0800):
7 I have no idea how helpbot got the idea of "a style which
7 purports to give a 'fair and balanced' overview". It is rare
7 indeed that I ever attempt an "overview".

_
helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 Really? Help bot must have confused you with some
7 other poster who quite frequently gives a recounting of
7 what has been said in any given thread. This "other guy"
7 is possibly the same one who stalks Sam Sloan this way.
7 Damned hackers can steal anyone's identity these days!

_
Can helpbot present specific examples of me claiming to
"give"

Nice one. You have changed the claim from one of giving
(or pretending to give) a fair-and-balanced summary, to me
supposedly stating you have *claimed* to do this. Very
nice indeed. You were saying, regarding the topic of
dishonesty?


"a recounting of what has been said in" a "given
thread"?

_
helpbot wrote (22 Dec 2006 22:49:09 -0800):
7 ... this pretense of objectivity is somewhat annoying
7 given his strong bias to either side shown on various
7 matters. I would much prefer an honest disagreement,
7 to this peculiar style of posting.
_
I wrote (23 Dec 2006 20:23:13 -0800):
7 What "pretense of objectivity"? I am a human being and
7 subject to the weaknesses that human beings have. I
7 suspect that helpbot is incorrectly reading a "pretense of
7 objectivity" into my habit of trying to make sure that people
7 know EXACTLY what I am writing about,

Look here, Dr. Blair. You know full well that in another
thread, you were caught ducking a charge of using the
third person, which was actually levied toward another
poster but your name came up as an alternate example
and you leaped into the discussion with a dishonest
retort. The objection in that case was to one Mark
Houlsby (I believe) "freaking out" a poster by talking
(writing) about him (to him) as though he were not even
there. The rhetoric MH adopted in self-defense was
precisely the same as yours; to wit: that he *only* used
the third person in order to be clear who said what to
whom, and for no other reason. Horsehuckey! The two
of you (among others here) have adopted the third person
for the obvious reason, and not merely in order to be clear
who said what to whom. You people (You know who you
are!) don't fool me, though I expect you do fool many, most
of the time.

and trying to make
7 sure that people can easily look up the details for themselves.

Google. Google is what allows people to look up the
details for themselves. What your summaries do (and
do quite well for the most part) is save them all that time
and work. So where's the beef? Here it is -- in many
cases, Dr. Blair himself (That's you!) is a participant in
the discussion, or an adversary of one of the opposing
sides. As such you are not impartial; you have an opinion,
or if you will, an agenda in defending said opinion, and
this cannot help bot affect your choices of inclusion vs.
omission.


helpbot wrote (24 Dec 2006 01:40:11 -0800):

7 What "pretense of objectivity"?
7
7 The one which you have adopted. Of course, I have no
7 handy quotes to demonstrate this, and it would require
7 readers to rely upon their own memories. I am lazy in this
7 way. (Plus I have no file of handy quotations, unlike certain
7 others here.) ...

_
I have posted at least six notes in the last day or so, and
helpbot does not have a single example that it wishes to
produce.

I strongly suspect this help bot creature is unforgivably
lazy.

About how long has it been since helpbot last
thought it perceived a so-called "pretense of objectivity"?

I actually tend to agree that LB's summary postings are
for the most part very objective. What gets me is those
few cases where I can plainly see that I agree with LB, but
he is not doing justice in his presentation of the opposing
side. For instance, suppose I wanted to undermine the
Evans ratpackers' position on issue X. I might very well
feel inclined to quote IM Innes in support of their position,
knowing full well that even a nitwit could do a better job
than he did. This I would consider to be fudging on the
issue; not tackling the best moves, but focusing instead
on an inferior line.

Can it give us any details at all about what caused it to
have this perception of such a "pretense"?

Hmm. Again, this would seem to require a lot of work,
and the help bot is, well, to put it like it is, lazy.



Helpbot identifies nothing specific that makes it think
that I was pretending to do such a thing.

True. He seems to speak in vague generalities, almost
as if expressing opinions, rather than pretending to be a
quote bot of some kind. You don't suppose... he could
be one of THEM? One of the humans?


7 and IMO, often do a fine job. But not always. Sometimes
7 there is something to be said for the side which is in
7 opposition to that position adopted by Louis Blair, and in
7 these cases they are not fairly represented, any more than ...

_
Not much can be said about this charge until helpbot
indicates a specific example of what it is writing about.


Help bot may not wish to fuss over the details of any
one particular incident. It is possible that this is one of
those newfangled bots, which is programmed to observe
or comment upon the so-called "big picture". Of course,
I have no exact quote of help bot *saying* this is the case.
And no specifics.

-- help bot

The Historian wrote:
Unfortunately, sometimes trolls confuse my pointing out their
cluelessness with anger. Take Liam Too, for example.

Any citation on this one Brennan? Perhaps Dr. Blair can help you on
this, otherwise, what you're saying is just plain calumniation.

help bot wrote:
That might fly if, for example, this misspelling were
to occur on its own. But in fact the posting was chock
full of misspellings of a multitude of different names
and common words, which would seem to indicate the
errors are not intentional, but due to ignorance (or
perhaps badly deformed typing fingers). Sometimes
I get the distinct impression that of all the many
posters here, only Phil Innes has made the leap to
using voice-recognition software to create his posts.
(Only he refuses to upgrade from the free, beta trial
version.)

The Cornish Celts are known for their linguistic prowess though. If you
compare him with the Historian, Brennan is way behind. It's like
comparing a doorknob to an effulgence.