"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 18, 9:48 am, "Rob" wrote:

8. Neither "Rob" nor Phil Innes can play chess worth
a hoot. Coincidence?

One this point you are wrong. Phil Innes is a wonderful player and is
in most cases modest in his ability.

Okay, so *maybe* out of nine points I may have gotten
one wrong. Big deal. The point is, you both appear in
the same threads, like a master and his puppy-dog, who
follows and yaps. In any event, all twelve of my other points
cannot be refuted, so your attempt to shoot down this one
still leaves the other thirteen to be addressed.

Woof woof! Hey man, you crazy or sumpin?

We just happen to have a similar philosophy in attending to what forwards us
and what holds us back. Sure enough, many people don't really care about
either - do you?

In terms of doggy relationships I have some dozen correspondents who discuss
chess all the time, and the only unusual factor is that this is a /public/
discussion not based on who says what, but /what/ is said - just like chess
itself where the best move is the best move, nomatter who suggests it - and
Rob Mitchell and I are in large agreement to the orientation of chess, what
forwards it and what does not.

Is this collaboration not to your liking to the degree that you publicly
resent it? It seems so.

I am not sure about your other dozen points, since I do not attend much to
things which do not address the overall health of chess issues, and instead
to a personal insistence of preference - which can tend to peevishness, no?

-----------

Even if my theory of dual-identity is wrong, the alternatives
don't look good; a typing lapdog? Or maybe a poorly written
defender-bot? So far, the only good thing I can say for the
"Rob" creature is that it is not so longwinded and arrogant as
its master, IM Innes.

I think you are ready to attend an editorial conference, where the only
insistence is on subject matter and who will actually do what. This may seem
like arrogance, but is in fact a cooperative venture of those who would do
things, rather than regret things. Your recent writing seems to have placed
you in this latter category to the extent that any group venture is darkly
suspicious that real people could do it - as revealed yet again in your
de-humanising language, dogs in this instance.

You are no doubt unconsciouss of your usage - but I am a European and I
really don't like what happened to masses of people in Europe when others
spoke of them this way.

But if you want a job in chess I'll get you one, since you can and do write.
What subject area in chess would you like to address that is of interest to
any public?

One day perhaps, the Rob creature may develop a mind of
its own, and suddenly dare to think for itself

Do you note this trend of your associations? Whereas you say I am arrogant,
you profess here in public a defamatory level of speech of literal
dehumanisation. People are not 'it' nor 'dogs'. Get over your self!

-- no longer a
mere mind-slave of Master Innes. I am reminded of the
poor creature "I-gor" from a Mel Brooks film. Except he was
a bit taller, and quite the lady-killer.

Greg Kennedy ends in make-believe and fantasy representations, not being
quite able to deal with the world of real adults, nor how they behave with
each other - not one word of chess in this message. And yet he is truly
intensely interested in chess writing as he demonstrates every day, but
resists falling into, in this case, my power! guffaw

Whereas Mr. Kennedy has forgot that his forefathers too were Celts, as were
the Mitchells and the Inneses; and we say [after a dram, true] 'a man's a
man for a' that!'

Mr. Kennedy possess a fine discrimination and bull-**** detector, all in
one, and more so, better than most others, but fears he will be hurt if he
joins in, like the rest of us. The truth Sir, is that it hurts either way,
by proud isolation one is reduced inexhorably to miserable lonliness, and in
opening up to others, there is pain in vulnerability.

The deciding factor, I suggest, is what benefits accompany each course we
chose in life. Should we not agree then that is well enough. But I am not
going to continue to write with someone using proto-fascist defamations and
dehumanising language about what they must publicly 'suppose' other peoples
lives contain.

Phil Innes


-- help bot

wrote in message
ups.com...
A NEW LOW

NMnot Taylor Kingston has lost interest in
whether his ally Edward Winter has engaged in repeated
serial lying when claiming copyright for photographs
that are either in the USCF photo morgue or owned
outright by the USCF after its purchase of Chess Review.

We knew NMnot's attention span would wander.

As for word from ChessCafe, the silence is deafening
about its role in attempting to purloin USCF property.

I can confirm the extent of the silence, you can hear it now all the way
from the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol [that's a 'Dyland' line, Larry]

Finally, I read a claim that the USCF is now
spiking mention in Nolanland of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's
role in the Yudina murder and the dentention of
dissidents in Soviet-era mental asylums, where they
are tortured. If true, a new low has been achieved by
Mike the Spike.

I wonder if it is more agreeable at Nolanland to talk about the Kalmyk women
who frequently go on hunger strike asking why they, peasants, should
subsidise rich country's chess play?

Probably some copyright problems in saying so? Or do we got some
rentier-Lasky attitude?

Phil Innes

On Feb 27, 8:52 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I can confirm the extent of the silence, you can hear it now all the way
from the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol [that's a 'Dyland' line, Larry]

Yep, from the song "Idiot Wind." A title very fitting for most of
what goes on in this forum.

http://www.chessville.com/misc/Histo...ttes/index.htm

DEAFENING SILENCE

NMnot Taylor Kingston has lost interest in
whether his ally Edward Winter has engaged in
repeated serial lying when claiming copyright for
photographs that are either in the USCF photo
morgue or owned outright by the USCF after its
purchase of Chess Review. We knew NMnot's
attention span would wander. As for word from
ChessCafe, the silence is deafening. -- - Larry Parr

Dear Phil Innes,

Taylor Kingston's attention still wanders. No doubt.

The deafening silence about Edward Winter's
claim at the ChessCafe to own many hundreds of
photographs would test any hearing aid. Our NMnot
does not wish to discuss the subject, and as a
libertarian, I support his right to silence.

Nor, Phil, need Mr. 2300+ Elo discuss his career
under false names on this forum, when he then praised
his own postings! If he were to speak frankly, I imagine
the explanation would run as follows: "I regard
myself as an honest man. In a moment of weakness,
caused by constant attacks from evil agents such as Sam
Sloan and Larry Parr, I took to adopting false names in order
to praise myself. This was wrong, but my fundamental essence
remains sound."

Something like that.

It helps to place oneself in the other guy's
shoes. By the way, my response to NMnot and the above
would be that no fundamentally sound moral personality
would be knocked from its moorings by attacks on these
chess forums -- of all places.

If NMnot were facing ruination, if he were
struggling to keep family together and the like, then
lapses would be far more understandable. None of us
can say with certainty what we would do in similar
circumstances. But when one permits ego to prompt
serial lying about one's identity here, then one is
not, in truth, a rock-ribbed personification of ethics.

In truth, contra NMnot's claim, he does not
entertain "standards." Except, to be sure, low ones.

wrote in message
oups.com...
DEAFENING SILENCE

NMnot Taylor Kingston has lost interest in
whether his ally Edward Winter has engaged in
repeated serial lying when claiming copyright for
photographs that are either in the USCF photo
morgue or owned outright by the USCF after its
purchase of Chess Review. We knew NMnot's
attention span would wander. As for word from
ChessCafe, the silence is deafening. -- - Larry Parr

Dear Phil Innes,

Taylor Kingston's attention still wanders. No doubt.

The deafening silence about Edward Winter's
claim at the ChessCafe to own many hundreds of
photographs would test any hearing aid. Our NMnot
does not wish to discuss the subject, and as a
libertarian, I support his right to silence.

Dear Lawrence H. Parr,

You mean silence now, rather than then? Do you support the right to be
other-than-silent about stating unsubstantiated 'facts' when the goal is
actually to render others silent on the subject?

Nor, Phil, need Mr. 2300+ Elo discuss his career
under false names on this forum, when he then praised
his own postings! If he were to speak frankly, I imagine
the explanation would run as follows: "I regard
myself as an honest man. In a moment of weakness,
caused by constant attacks from evil agents such as Sam
Sloan and Larry Parr, I took to adopting false names in order
to praise myself. This was wrong, but my fundamental essence
remains sound."

Well, sure. But it seems we are ever conflating topic and personality, as if
usenet discussion of chess were following Saul up that old road, until we
come to Paul. But this is a philosophy - and a biblical but untestable
factor would be to assess Saul's and Paul's chess games and see if we can
tell any difference. grin

Perhaps a more modern analogy would be Wagner - is his music less
interesting to you after you discover Herr Wolfie liked him?

What I can't determine about Lord K is if he can determine anything about
his Self, from his behavior, or if these are synonyms to him - and further,
some measure of looking at chess histories as necessarily collaborative
efforts where it is more important to qualify how you know something, rather
than advocate the same thing. Nothing wrong with advocacy as such, but
advocacy ain't history.

Something like that.

It helps to place oneself in the other guy's
shoes. By the way, my response to NMnot and the above
would be that no fundamentally sound moral personality
would be knocked from its moorings by attacks on these
chess forums -- of all places.

I think an exception is that if usenet rhetoric was your actual base of
sense. And any rhetoric is a form of self promotion and attempt to influence
other people. This comes to grief when we discover that other people
actually have a different basis, one we cannot understand, and while we can
see their ideas are imperfect, or not perfectly represented to us, we can't
tell one from t'other! [ROFL]

If NMnot were facing ruination, if he were
struggling to keep family together and the like, then
lapses would be far more understandable. None of us
can say with certainty what we would do in similar
circumstances. But when one permits ego to prompt
serial lying about one's identity here, then one is
not, in truth, a rock-ribbed personification of ethics.

In truth, contra NMnot's claim, he does not
entertain "standards." Except, to be sure, low ones.

I am not minded to be so severe [albeit, trashing other people in every -
yes, every post ain't likable, unless you likes your likings on the
dark-side]. I think the difficulty with Anons or pseudo-identities seems to
be this: that general readers attain a sense from real posters who own what
they say as emerging from their own experiences, as a natural perspective.
If you cannot refer to your real life then you are perforce reduced to
rather hypothetical representations of what you don't admit or even know
['pathic' discourses], and an abandonment of personal verisimilitude
entirely, and you hitch-hike on other people's lives, which is indeed to
live a ghostly second-hand and even vampiric form of existence.

But mostly I find this absent-persona stuff so boring! It so rarely contains
any natural feeling for the game, certainly not enough to talk about it
directly with other adults - and this eliminates real conversation, and only
allows satirical interrogation as means of public discourse.

That word 'standards' is interesting. It is similar to 'morals' the real
sense of which emerges from [L.] MORES, which means custom - and in fact
indifferently represents both high and low custom - and had no 'moral' sense
to it at all! But was a reflection of what people actually did, rather than
eg, what they said they did, and any rhetoric of preference or
interpretation.

Perhaps significantly in order to find our modern sense of 'standard' we
have to regress from Rome to Greece, since the Romans had not much need of
ETHICS when force would do! And Greek ethics were of 2 types - the lowest
standard was called the Law. Other and higher standards were required
elsewhere, either as specific agreements to enter some realm of life, or as
elected standards for personal life.

It is only in sacred writings of all cultures that we see a concinnity; a
conjunctio of these two factors, and what happens then! Such writings are
reflected in religions, but essentially I use the term 'sacred'
deliberately - with the sense of its zyzygous relationship to profane - and
indeed one cannot exist without the other!

Interestingly I have tried some of these [simple, sure, but simple is hard!]
ideas on people from differing cultures, and with religious people too. They
can agree that it would form what they understand to be the basis of their
own deep culture - and indeed, they would further agree to accord with
anyone on such a basis from other cultures.

That, Sir, I suggest is a significant agreement.

Meanwhile, the very modest arena of chess does form one social function
which is /also/ socially valuable in all cultures. It is a form of
engagement of aggression into a /ritual/ conflict which stands between
tensions and sending the bombers, or blasting away with the Saturday-night
special. One struggles to think of other cultural intercessionary activities
which are available to anyone the same way.

Cordially, Phil Innes