help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
Nobody other than me is involved in the decision about
what I put in my notes.

_
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 ... 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. ...
_
I wrote (24 Dec 2006 16:04:48 -0800):
7 ... That is not what I was writing. I was referring to
7 connotations.

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
I used the words, "if ... helpbot is only intending to indicate
....". I was not referring to something that I claim to be definite.

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 I was referring to connotations.
7
7 While I may well have been referring to selective quoting.

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

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
That is not what I was writing.

_
I wrote (24 Dec 2006 16:04:48 -0800):
7 I have tried to indicate that I find the word choice of helpbot
7 to be unclear. This is one of the reasons that I encourage
7 the use of specific examples.

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
First of all, I have NOT been "insist"ing on "proof". I have
been noting the absence of evidence and specifics in
helpbot's comments. Second, it is not a matter of helpbot
failing to put evidence and specifics in "each" of its notes,
complaining about me. I have not seen it put the
evidence and specifics in ANY of its notes - the recent
ones anyway. Maybe there was something weeks or
months ago that I have forgotten about. In that case, it
seems to me that it should be willing to produce some
information that would help one to look up such a note.

_
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!
7 ...
_
I wrote (24 Dec 2006 16:04:48 -0800):
7 Can helpbot present specific examples of me claiming to
7 "give" "a recounting of what has been said in" a "given
7 thread"?

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
I did not change what helpbot wrote. I reproduced it, and
have reproduced it again. See above. My QUESTION was
not an assertion. If helpbot agrees that I did not claim to
"give" "a recounting of what has been said in" a "given
thread", then why does it refer to someone who "frequently
gives 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 (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 Look here, Dr. Blair. You know full well that in another
7 thread, you were caught ducking a charge of using the
7 third person, which was actually levied toward another
7 poster but your name came up as an alternate example
7 and you leaped into the discussion with a dishonest
7 retort. The objection in that case was to one Mark
7 Houlsby (I believe) "freaking out" a poster by talking
7 (writing) about him (to him) as though he were not even
7 there.

_
I know of no discussion that fits the above description.
Perhaps helpbot is thinking of the discussion that contained
this comment:
_
"... It's common enough for writers in this public
forum to refer to other writers by their names
rather than as 'you'. The aim is to reduce
the potential ambiguity and confusion when
other writers quote (and snip) what's been written.
_
For instance, Louis Blair, a longtime writer in
rec.games.chess.*, always has, as far as I can
recall, referred to other writers by their names.
As far as I can recall, no one has taken offence
at Louis Blair for doing that. Recently, Nick
Cramer, for instance, wrote that he would not
take any offence at being referred to in the third
person because he understands the aim of
reducing potential confusion. ..." - Nick
(7 Dec 2006 16:59:02 -0800)
_
I made NO contribution to that thread ("Chess is dying
- Sanny's GetClub.com is destroying chess"). My guess
is that the Nick Cramer reference was in connection to
the thread, "Saddam given ultimate..". I did not make
any contribution to that thread either.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 The rhetoric MH adopted in self-defense was precisely the
7 same as yours; to wit: that he *only* used the third person
7 in order to be clear who said what to whom, and for no
7 other reason. Horsehuckey! The two of you (among
7 others here) have adopted the third person for the obvious
7 reason, and not merely in order to be clear who said what
7 to whom. You people (You know who you are!) don't fool
7 me, though I expect you do fool many, most of the time.

_
I do not know what "obvious reason" helpbot has in mind.
Certainly it is not in order to have a "pretense of objectivity".
I am quite willing to assert (and helpbot can quote me on
this whenever it wants) that the use of the third person is
not a reliable indication of objectivity.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 Google. Google is what allows people to look up the
7 details for themselves.

_
Generally, it is easier to find something with Google if one
has a specific quote and specific information about the date
in Google records for the quote.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 What your summaries do (and do quite well for the
7 most part) is save them all that time and work. So
7 where's the beef? Here it is -- in many cases, Dr. Blair
7 himself (That's you!) is a participant in the discussion,
7 or an adversary of one of the opposing sides. As such
7 you are not impartial; you have an opinion, or if you will,
7 an agenda in defending said opinion, and this cannot
7 help bot affect your choices of inclusion vs. omission.
7 ...

_
Is there anyone who posts without having opinions that
affect what he or she posts?

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
Not much can be said about this charge until helpbot
indicates a specific example of what it is writing about.
Offhand, I can not remember an occasion when I have
tried to present the opposing side of an issue. Generally,
any specific note of mine is a reaction to a specific note
posted by someone else.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 ...
7 Help bot may not wish to fuss over the details of any one
7 particular incident. It is possible that this is one of those
7 newfangled bots, which is programmed to observe or
7 comment upon the so-called "big picture". Of course, I
7 have no exact quote of help bot *saying* this is the case.
7 And no specifics.

_
Perhaps, people will take helpbot's description of a supposed
"third person" incident as an indication of the quality of its
thinking.

help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
Nobody other than me is involved in the decision about
what I put in my notes.

_
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 ... 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. ...
_
I wrote (24 Dec 2006 16:04:48 -0800):
7 ... That is not what I was writing. I was referring to
7 connotations.

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
I used the words, "if ... helpbot is only intending to indicate
....". I was not referring to something that I claim to be definite.

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 I was referring to connotations.
7
7 While I may well have been referring to selective quoting.

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

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
That is not what I was writing.

_
I wrote (24 Dec 2006 16:04:48 -0800):
7 I have tried to indicate that I find the word choice of helpbot
7 to be unclear. This is one of the reasons that I encourage
7 the use of specific examples.

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
First of all, I have NOT been "insist"ing on "proof". I have
been noting the absence of evidence and specifics in
helpbot's comments. Second, it is not a matter of helpbot
failing to put evidence and specifics in "each" of its notes,
complaining about me. I have not seen it put the
evidence and specifics in ANY of its notes - the recent
ones anyway. Maybe there was something weeks or
months ago that I have forgotten about. In that case, it
seems to me that it should be willing to produce some
information that would help one to look up such a note.

_
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!
7 ...
_
I wrote (24 Dec 2006 16:04:48 -0800):
7 Can helpbot present specific examples of me claiming to
7 "give" "a recounting of what has been said in" a "given
7 thread"? ...

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
I did not change what helpbot wrote. I reproduced it, and
have reproduced it again. See above. My QUESTION was
not an assertion. If helpbot agrees that I did not claim to
"give" "a recounting of what has been said in" a "given
thread", then why does it refer to someone who "frequently
gives 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 (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 Look here, Dr. Blair. You know full well that in another
7 thread, you were caught ducking a charge of using the
7 third person, which was actually levied toward another
7 poster but your name came up as an alternate example
7 and you leaped into the discussion with a dishonest
7 retort. The objection in that case was to one Mark
7 Houlsby (I believe) "freaking out" a poster by talking
7 (writing) about him (to him) as though he were not even
7 there.

_
I know of no discussion that fits the above description.
Perhaps helpbot is thinking of the discussion that contained
this comment:
_
"... It's common enough for writers in this public
forum to refer to other writers by their names
rather than as 'you'. The aim is to reduce
the potential ambiguity and confusion when
other writers quote (and snip) what's been written.
_
For instance, Louis Blair, a longtime writer in
rec.games.chess.*, always has, as far as I can
recall, referred to other writers by their names.
As far as I can recall, no one has taken offence
at Louis Blair for doing that. Recently, Nick
Cramer, for instance, wrote that he would not
take any offence at being referred to in the third
person because he understands the aim of
reducing potential confusion. ..." - Nick
(7 Dec 2006 16:59:02 -0800)
_
I made NO contribution to that thread ("Chess is dying
- Sanny's GetClub.com is destroying chess"). My guess
is that the Nick Cramer reference was in connection to
the thread, "Saddam given ultimate..". I did not make
any contribution to that thread either.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 The rhetoric MH adopted in self-defense was precisely the
7 same as yours; to wit: that he *only* used the third person
7 in order to be clear who said what to whom, and for no
7 other reason. Horsehuckey! The two of you (among
7 others here) have adopted the third person for the obvious
7 reason, and not merely in order to be clear who said what
7 to whom. You people (You know who you are!) don't fool
7 me, though I expect you do fool many, most of the time.

_
I do not know what "obvious reason" helpbot has in mind.
Certainly it is not in order to have a "pretense of objectivity".
I am quite willing to assert (and helpbot can quote me on
this whenever it wants) that the use of the third person is
not a reliable indication of objectivity.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 Google. Google is what allows people to look up the
7 details for themselves.

_
Generally, it is easier to find something with Google if one
has a specific quote and specific information about the date
in Google records for the quote.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 What your summaries do (and do quite well for the
7 most part) is save them all that time and work. So
7 where's the beef? Here it is -- in many cases, Dr. Blair
7 himself (That's you!) is a participant in the discussion,
7 or an adversary of one of the opposing sides. As such
7 you are not impartial; you have an opinion, or if you will,
7 an agenda in defending said opinion, and this cannot
7 help bot affect your choices of inclusion vs. omission.
7 ...

_
Is there anyone who posts without having opinions that
affect what he or she posts?

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
Not much can be said about this charge until helpbot
indicates a specific example of what it is writing about.
Offhand, I can not remember an occasion when I have
tried to present the opposing side of an issue. Generally,
any specific note of mine is a reaction to a specific note
posted by someone else.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 ...
7 Help bot may not wish to fuss over the details of any one
7 particular incident. It is possible that this is one of those
7 newfangled bots, which is programmed to observe or
7 comment upon the so-called "big picture". Of course, I
7 have no exact quote of help bot *saying* this is the case.
7 And no specifics.

_
Perhaps, people will take helpbot's description of a supposed
"third person" incident as an indication of the quality of its
thinking.

help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
Nobody other than me is involved in the decision about
what I put in my notes.

_
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 ... 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. ...
_
I wrote (24 Dec 2006 16:04:48 -0800):
7 ... That is not what I was writing. I was referring to
7 connotations.

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
I used the words, "if ... helpbot is only intending to indicate
....". I was not referring to something that I claim to be definite.

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 I was referring to connotations.
7
7 While I may well have been referring to selective quoting.

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

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
That is not what I was writing.

_
I wrote (24 Dec 2006 16:04:48 -0800):
7 I have tried to indicate that I find the word choice of helpbot
7 to be unclear. This is one of the reasons that I encourage
7 the use of specific examples.

_
help bot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
First of all, I have NOT been "insist"ing on "proof". I have
been noting the absence of evidence and specifics in
helpbot's comments. Second, it is not a matter of helpbot
failing to put evidence and specifics in "each" of its notes,
complaining about me. I have not seen it put the
evidence and specifics in ANY of its notes - the recent
ones anyway. Maybe there was something weeks or
months ago that I have forgotten about. In that case, it
seems to me that it should be willing to produce some
information that would help one to look up such a note.

_
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!
7 ...
_
I wrote (24 Dec 2006 16:04:48 -0800):
7 Can helpbot present specific examples of me claiming to
7 "give" "a recounting of what has been said in" a "given
7 thread"? ...

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
I did not change what helpbot wrote. I reproduced it, and
have reproduced it again. See above. My QUESTION was
not an assertion. If helpbot agrees that I did not claim to
"give" "a recounting of what has been said in" a "given
thread", then why does it refer to someone who "frequently
gives 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 (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 Look here, Dr. Blair. You know full well that in another
7 thread, you were caught ducking a charge of using the
7 third person, which was actually levied toward another
7 poster but your name came up as an alternate example
7 and you leaped into the discussion with a dishonest
7 retort. The objection in that case was to one Mark
7 Houlsby (I believe) "freaking out" a poster by talking
7 (writing) about him (to him) as though he were not even
7 there.

_
I know of no discussion that fits the above description.
Perhaps helpbot is thinking of the discussion that contained
this comment:
_
"... It's common enough for writers in this public
forum to refer to other writers by their names
rather than as 'you'. The aim is to reduce
the potential ambiguity and confusion when
other writers quote (and snip) what's been written.
_
For instance, Louis Blair, a longtime writer in
rec.games.chess.*, always has, as far as I can
recall, referred to other writers by their names.
As far as I can recall, no one has taken offence
at Louis Blair for doing that. Recently, Nick
Cramer, for instance, wrote that he would not
take any offence at being referred to in the third
person because he understands the aim of
reducing potential confusion. ..." - Nick
(7 Dec 2006 16:59:02 -0800)
_
I made NO contribution to that thread ("Chess is dying
- Sanny's GetClub.com is destroying chess"). My guess
is that the Nick Cramer reference was in connection to
the thread, "Saddam given ultimate..". I did not make
any contribution to that thread either.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 The rhetoric MH adopted in self-defense was precisely the
7 same as yours; to wit: that he *only* used the third person
7 in order to be clear who said what to whom, and for no
7 other reason. Horsehuckey! The two of you (among
7 others here) have adopted the third person for the obvious
7 reason, and not merely in order to be clear who said what
7 to whom. You people (You know who you are!) don't fool
7 me, though I expect you do fool many, most of the time.

_
I do not know what "obvious reason" helpbot has in mind.
Certainly it is not in order to have a "pretense of objectivity".
I am quite willing to assert (and helpbot can quote me on
this whenever it wants) that the use of the third person is
not a reliable indication of objectivity.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 Google. Google is what allows people to look up the
7 details for themselves.

_
Generally, it is easier to find something with Google if one
has a specific quote and specific information about the date
in Google records for the quote.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 What your summaries do (and do quite well for the
7 most part) is save them all that time and work. So
7 where's the beef? Here it is -- in many cases, Dr. Blair
7 himself (That's you!) is a participant in the discussion,
7 or an adversary of one of the opposing sides. As such
7 you are not impartial; you have an opinion, or if you will,
7 an agenda in defending said opinion, and this cannot
7 help bot affect your choices of inclusion vs. omission.
7 ...

_
Is there anyone who posts without having opinions that
affect what he or she posts?

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

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

_
Not much can be said about this charge until helpbot
indicates a specific example of what it is writing about.
Offhand, I can not remember an occasion when I have
tried to present the opposing side of an issue. Generally,
any specific note of mine is a reaction to a specific note
posted by someone else.

_
helpbot wrote (25 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0800):

7 ...
7 Help bot may not wish to fuss over the details of any one
7 particular incident. It is possible that this is one of those
7 newfangled bots, which is programmed to observe or
7 comment upon the so-called "big picture". Of course, I
7 have no exact quote of help bot *saying* this is the case.
7 And no specifics.

_
Perhaps, people will take helpbot's description of a supposed
"third person" incident (in which I participated) as an indication
of the quality of its thinking.

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

_
Perhaps, people will take helpbot's description of a supposed
"third person" incident (in which I participated) as an indication
of the quality of its thinking.

I can understand thread drift, but after looking at this post [remnant
above] for the 3rd time, can Blair actually write on topic? Can he even
understand the format of newsnet, which does not require him to post
histories of the subject. People requote others here in order to answer them
or make an emphasis - but of their own comments, and such histories as Blair
performs are his own edited comments which strip the context and sequence or
writing, as if it did not exist - in fact he juxtaposes material which have
no business being together.

For example, I wrote earlier of an opportunity extended to him to contact
family Morphy - various dunces doubted this as they doubt everything, but
Blair has neither affirmed nor denied.

Is that a selective 'no comment'?

It is frankly idiotic to profess that these edits are not compositions of
Blair's own opinions and his selection of material according to his own
design - and this illustration of excising a contact with family-Morphy is
the /only/ on topic element relevant to this thread.

Is Blair 'fairly' reporting off-topic material as if this were somehow
relevant in a newsgroup? While cutting on-topic material to which he could
contribute, if he would only own his own actions?

Phil Innes

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:41:14 GMT):

7 I can understand thread drift, but after looking at this post
7 [remnant above] for the 3rd time, can Blair actually write
7 on topic? Can he even understand the format of newsnet,
7 which does not require him to post histories of the subject.
7 People requote others here in order to answer them or
7 make an emphasis - but of their own comments, and such
7 histories as Blair performs are his own edited comments
7 which strip the context and sequence or writing, as if it
7 did not exist - in fact he juxtaposes material which have
7 no business being together.
7
7 For example, I wrote earlier of an opportunity extended to
7 him to contact family Morphy - various dunces doubted
7 this as they doubt everything, but Blair has neither
7 affirmed nor denied.
7
7 Is that a selective 'no comment'?
7
7 It is frankly idiotic to profess that these edits are not
7 compositions of Blair's own opinions and his selection
7 of material according to his own design - and this
7 illustration of excising a contact with family-Morphy is
7 the /only/ on topic element relevant to this thread.
7
7 Is Blair 'fairly' reporting off-topic material as if this were
7 somehow relevant in a newsgroup? While cutting
7 on-topic material to which he could contribute, if he
7 would only own his own actions?

_
I am responding to attacks against me that OTHERS
chose to post in this thread. Phil Innes may prefer that
I not respond to such attacks, but he will not necessarily
get his wish. While responding to such attacks, I see
nothing wrong with ignoring subjects that I have no
obligation to discuss.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ps.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:41:14 GMT):

7 I can understand thread drift, but after looking at this post
7 [remnant above] for the 3rd time, can Blair actually write
7 on topic? Can he even understand the format of newsnet,
7 which does not require him to post histories of the subject.
7 People requote others here in order to answer them or
7 make an emphasis - but of their own comments, and such
7 histories as Blair performs are his own edited comments
7 which strip the context and sequence or writing, as if it
7 did not exist - in fact he juxtaposes material which have
7 no business being together.
7
7 For example, I wrote earlier of an opportunity extended to
7 him to contact family Morphy - various dunces doubted
7 this as they doubt everything, but Blair has neither
7 affirmed nor denied.
7
7 Is that a selective 'no comment'?
7
7 It is frankly idiotic to profess that these edits are not
7 compositions of Blair's own opinions and his selection
7 of material according to his own design - and this
7 illustration of excising a contact with family-Morphy is
7 the /only/ on topic element relevant to this thread.
7
7 Is Blair 'fairly' reporting off-topic material as if this were
7 somehow relevant in a newsgroup? While cutting
7 on-topic material to which he could contribute, if he
7 would only own his own actions?

_
I am responding to attacks against me that OTHERS
chose to post in this thread. Phil Innes may prefer that
I not respond to such attacks, but he will not necessarily
get his wish. While responding to such attacks, I see
nothing wrong with ignoring subjects that I have no
obligation to discuss.

I 'may prefer' invents Louis on the subject of 'attacks', which I did not
mention, but I will 'not necessarily' get whatever Louis thinks I wish
for.... yawn.

This is in response to a straight question.

Louis seems more concerned with the subject of 'attacks' than with Morphy.
As if he or these attacks were actually more important in some way than
Morphy - and of course, he passes on responding to why he prefers this odd
concentration about himself, when I directly asked him above why he never
contacted family Morphy, to mention instead 'attacks' as if I had asked him
that.

Louis is replying that he has no obligation to address either the topic of
the thread, or direct questions put to him, yet asserts his right to talk
about himself, though without actually addressing his own role in editing
content. yawn

This seems to be what Louis Blair is about. Its about him. But he can't say
its about him, and so invents a way to hide his activities as if he wasn't
here.

Phil Innes

After quoting a portion of my 26 Dec 2006 19:52:18 -0800
note, Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:41:14 GMT):
7 I can understand thread drift, but after looking at this post
7 [remnant above] for the 3rd time, can Blair actually write
7 on topic? Can he even understand the format of newsnet,
7 which does not require him to post histories of the subject.
7 People requote others here in order to answer them or
7 make an emphasis - but of their own comments, and such
7 histories as Blair performs are his own edited comments
7 which strip the context and sequence or writing, as if it
7 did not exist - in fact he juxtaposes material which have
7 no business being together.
7
7 For example, I wrote earlier of an opportunity extended to
7 him to contact family Morphy - various dunces doubted
7 this as they doubt everything, but Blair has neither
7 affirmed nor denied.
7
7 Is that a selective 'no comment'?
7
7 It is frankly idiotic to profess that these edits are not
7 compositions of Blair's own opinions and his selection
7 of material according to his own design - and this
7 illustration of excising a contact with family-Morphy is
7 the /only/ on topic element relevant to this thread.
7
7 Is Blair 'fairly' reporting off-topic material as if this were
7 somehow relevant in a newsgroup? While cutting
7 on-topic material to which he could contribute, if he
7 would only own his own actions?
_
I wrote (27 Dec 2006 13:52:08 -0800):
7 I am responding to attacks against me that OTHERS
7 chose to post in this thread. Phil Innes may prefer that
7 I not respond to such attacks, but he will not necessarily
7 get his wish. While responding to such attacks, I see
7 nothing wrong with ignoring subjects that I have no
7 obligation to discuss.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:51:11 GMT):

7 I 'may prefer' invents Louis on the subject of 'attacks',
7 which I did not mention, but I will 'not necessarily' get
7 whatever Louis thinks I wish for.... yawn
7
7 This is in response to a straight question.
7
7 Louis seems more concerned with the subject of
7 'attacks' than with Morphy. As if he or these attacks
7 were actually more important in some way than Morphy
7 - and of course, he passes on responding to why he
7 prefers this odd concentration about himself, when I
7 directly asked him above why he never contacted
7 family Morphy, to mention instead 'attacks' as if I had
7 asked him that.
7
7 Louis is replying that he has no obligation to address
7 either the topic of the thread, or direct questions put to
7 him, yet asserts his right to talk about himself,

_
I am responding to attacks against me that OTHERS
chose to post in this thread. While responding to such
attacks, I see nothing wrong with ignoring subjects that I
have no obligation to discuss.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:51:11 GMT):

7 ... though without actually addressing his own role in
7 editing content. yawn

_
"Nobody other than me is involved in the decision
about what I put in my notes. ..." - Louis Blair
(26 Dec 2006 19:52:18 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:51:11 GMT):

7 This seems to be what Louis Blair is about. Its about
7 him. But he can't say its about him, and so invents a
7 way to hide his activities as if he wasn't here.

_
I am responding to attacks against me that OTHERS
chose to post in this thread. While responding to such
attacks, I see nothing wrong with ignoring subjects that I
have no obligation to discuss.