The issue of whether he wrote them seems always contested, but wasn't a
version in his own hand found at his home? In fact under his own bed, and by
his wife? Why would he even keep a copy, and why there, subject to
discovery?

The PZ articles are rather strange, since they begin in usual fashion,
disparaging everything Jewish and are different only in that they are
less-crude than typical defamation materials, but they do address and
disparage 'Jewish Chess', but towards the end of the articles Alekhine
mentions players he knows by name, to except them from the general criticism
he made earlier - to the extent that a careful read seems to promote a
negative view of Jewish Chess which he then deflates by excepting actual
players he knows.

------
Does your copy include or subsume material from "107 Great Chess Battles,
1939-1945" ? Edward Winter [ed. and translator], and which acknowledges in
the preface Bernard Cafferty's contribution 'for clearing up a number of
obscure points'. (Though it is not said which points Winter found obscure in
1979).

I think most of this translation was from Spanish and material written
mid-late 1943 to 1945.

He also thanks the ed of Brit Chess Magazine for permission of the famous
tribute to Capablanca preceding game 68 which ends; "...whose like we shall
never see again."

The title mentions the character of many famous players, and is perhaps also
notable for -not- making any comments like those in the two paragraphs
above. Not even the slightest whiff of differentiating comment based on
ethnicity.

-----

It has always seemed a more serious indictment of Alekhine to discuss the
circumstances of his visit to Poland. The Paris Zeitinger articles seem
damning on their face, but have a sting in the tail! It is interesting to
read them all and assess for yourself if you think Alekhine was taking
subtle revenge on any forced writing.

But to go to Krakow in 1942 was quite different, and even though he played
Bogo a great game there [A 6. h4 French, introduced at Mannheim 1914 says
AA], the man he played skittles with and accepted hospitality from, was a
dark lord indeed - the butcher of Krakow - Hans Franck. He also played in
Prague in 1943 and then left northern Europe.

This Krakow reference is usually glossed in biographies and histories, and I
wonder if anyone knows more context or has read any published record of his
visit?

It seems incredible to think that Alekhine would have thought the Nazis were
behaving in Poland the same way they were in France - though he would
certainly not be alone in a naive appraisal - and whether this Krakow visit
was naive, but became a causal factor for him to leave the occupied zones,
or whether Alekhine was truly asocially indifferent to much beyond chess, is
a subject that a psychologically capable researcher might investigate.

Phil Innes

"Inconnux" wrote in message
ups.com...
Bah Google groups didn't post my comments :/

I just stated that it wasn't until I purchased
'My best games of chess 1908-1937 -
Alexander Alekhine Two volumes
bound as one' (Dover edition 1985)
that I ever knew that A.Alekhine denied
writing those articles. It is truely hard
to say whether he did or not. What would
any of us do if a tyranical government
held our wives? I certainly hope he didn't
write them, but articles aside he was a
true great and his games are enjoyable
to go over to this day.

BTW good article by mr Winter.

J.Lohner
'Inconnux'

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

...

I wish you much joy with your Chess Gaffes.

You don't suffer anything! And as usual you duck the challenge by declaring
yourself correct when your opinion is just a preference! When its your own
indolence and mistakes you are 'under-researched' no? Whether its Averbakh
or 100 best games, its never about you as if you were a human being like the
rest of us, your behavior is always excused from any critique.

Here below is what you cut, and you are marked for your cutting up chess
subjects, and snipe away in public while reserving your own genius for
Jesus? The challenge is not to be such a lordly hypocrite about chess
writing, as exampled by the majority of what your writing in public and
private, which is to denigrate other people's efforts.

The choice is to be like Winter, and expect much from others that he
can't deliver himself, or to actually make a /useful/ contribution, which is
more than public whining. If you can write well, do it, don't carp about
others. Chess players say 'show me'.

Phil Innes

---

MEANWHILE; BACK IN THE TRENCHES

All I see here is the difficulty of resolving 500-700 words of player
biograph to everyone's satisfaction at the first throw, which may not even
be possible - but at least there is a will to evolve it. I don't see any
resistance to making sensible amendments, but Kingston's are not sensible,
and if the original is diffident to sense, the rebuke is equally so!

One reason to create these /reader-supplied/ bios was the malicious
destruction of other work at Wikipedia for similar reasons. As readers can
see, personal preferences to wording are quite distinct from amending
established matters of fact - but the same negativity applies by taking some
very slight instance, or quibble, and trashing the whole thing.

If Kingston is such a paragon of correctness he might try his own submission
to the editor of the column, and instead of beggar the subject, demonstrate
the right way!

Vignettes is a good format for either brief life biographies, or anecdotes
about a player or an event. And there is much unrecorded material on
American players worthy of attention. What is unworthy of anyone's time is
to bitch over what are no more than personal foibles.

Certainly the hit-rate for such material is very good, players seem
genuinely interested in chess history, and I recommend anyone here having a
go at writing a bio or a few anecdotes about their favorite player. Several
thousand unique hits /per day/ are recorded and more people will read your
effort than ever read Chess Life, and your name will be appended [if you
wish] to your submission, plus links to more substantial reading should you
think it warranted.

I do not edit this column, but suggested it as a regular feature as well as
recruiting its editor, who will by these means recruit writing from the
chess public.

Mr. Kingston protests too much about what is good, and what can be better,
which is not to deny him his views, nor necessarily disagree with him. But
it is something like Winter's suggested chess writing; while we would agree
with his list, Winter himself is not about to do it. This fact recommends a
less acerbic stance from Winter, and from others deploying a similar
/modus/.

Phil Innes

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


On Jan 16, 9:41 am, "Rob" wrote:
Taylor,
If you disagree with something in the New York Times it would be
pointless and ignorant to complain about it in the Monteray News.
Posting corrections here means nothing. Send your corrections or
complaints to the editor/publisher/author of the article. This is not a
forum to correct anything.

Indeed? Then neither is it a forum to advertise anything. If you post
an announcement about something here, you must accept feedback about it
here.

Kingston states he doesn't /want/ to correct anything by direct result of
his own actions, and says he only offers 'feedback', that the materials are,
in his view, correctible. This was the same reason that the Wikipedia chess
materials were trashed - no good means of correcting errors existed
independent of a destructive behavior on the part of critics.

What Kingston /really/ doesn't like is that /someone else/ thought of this
very good idea

together with a means to make adjustments for necessary corrections and
amplifications.

I do not see him submitting any of his own material, or offering the editor
his, well... own assertions, though I expect he would support the fact that
there /is/ an editor to audit submissions and suggestions. I say I expect,
since I have not seen him affirm /this/ fact as being of value in his
writing here, in this thread that ge /he/ started, and where he has merely
sicklied over a most interesting project. That is his current contribution.

Put up or shut up, I say.

Phil Innes

On Jan 17, 8:25 am, "Chess One" wrote:
The issue of whether he wrote them seems always contested, but wasn't a
version in his own hand found at his home? In fact under his own bed, and by
his wife?

Our Phil, as usual, shows himself not very well informed. Despite
links to Winter's article "Was Alekhine a Nazi?" (
www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine.html )being posted in this
thread now, and several other times in the past, and despite the fact
that the first version of the article appeared back in 1989, Innes
apparently has not bothered to read it. If he had, he would know that
these alleged manuscripts in Alekhine's hand have never been shown to
the world. We have only the uncorroborated testimony of two people,
only one of whom is now living, that the manuscripts ever existed. And
their testimony has been rather inconsistent, as Winter points out:

"Brian Reilly, then the Editor of the BCM, had told them in 1956 that
he had just seen the articles. However, this is denied by Reilly, whose
eagerly-awaited biography of Alekhine will doubtless provide his
account of the matter. [Brian Reilly died in 1991, and his work on
Alekhine has not been published.]"

"In C.N. 1920 we ... commented: 'It is a pity that Mr Le Monnier
did not answer our straightforward point: if in 1958 he saw an article
in Alekhine's own hand, why, some 15 years later, did he write that
'it will never be known whether Alekhine was behind these articles
....'?"

It seems Le Monnier has never shown the manuscript he claims to
possess, and apparently (assuming it does exist) it will not be shown
until at least 2017, and then only if Alekhine's heirs consent.

The PZ articles are rather strange, since they begin in usual fashion,
disparaging everything Jewish and are different only in that they are
less-crude than typical defamation materials, but they do address and
disparage 'Jewish Chess', but towards the end of the articles Alekhine
mentions players he knows by name, to except them from the general criticism
he made earlier - to the extent that a careful read seems to promote a
negative view of Jewish Chess which he then deflates by excepting actual
players he knows.

Your reading of the articles differs from mine. It seems to me that
when they got to specific players, special effort was made to portray
them as examples of the despised "Jewish Chess," even when the player's
actual style did not fit the mold at all. For example, the #1 tenet of
"Jewish Chess" was supposedly "material gain at all costs." The
contortions employed to try to fit such sacrifice-oriented players as
Janowski, Mieses, and Spielmann, and such a master of attack as
Botvinnik, into this "materialistic" style, were truly ludicrous.

It has always seemed a more serious indictment of Alekhine to discuss the
circumstances of his visit to Poland. The Paris Zeitinger articles ...

Phil, please learn to spell. It's "Zeitung," which means newspaper in
German. I don't believe there is any such word as "Zeitinger" in German
-- at least neither my dictionary nor Babelfish show it. And the "er"
belongs at the end of Paris. "Pariser Zeitung" means "the newspaper of
Paris."

But to go to Krakow in 1942 was quite different,

You are referring, I suppose, to the Third General Government
Tournament, 11-24 October 1942. That was held mainly in Warsaw and
Lublin. Just the last two of its eleven rounds were in Cracow.

and even though he played
Bogo a great game there [A 6. h4 French, introduced at Mannheim 1914 says
AA], the man he played skittles with and accepted hospitality from, was a
dark lord indeed - the butcher of Krakow - Hans Franck.

Frank.

He also played in
Prague in 1943 and then left northern Europe.

Not immediately. The Prague event ended 29 April 1943. Alekhine
played, and tied for for 1st with Keres, in a tournament at Salzburg
9-18 June. He did not get to Spain until October.

This Krakow reference is usually glossed in biographies and histories, and I
wonder if anyone knows more context or has read any published record of his
visit?

There is a brief account on page 689 of "Alexander Alekhine's Chess
Games 1902-1946" by Skinner and Verhoeven, but it mentions little about
Frank, mainly that he sponsored and helped organize the event, and
personally donated three "best game" prizes, two of which Alekhine won.
Of Alekhine's personal feelings about the Poland visit, little is
said, though there is this tentative but telling epilogue:

"The state of his health was another factor that may have been
responsible for his fluctuating form. At this time, some reports hint
that he was over indulging in alcohol and was very often in a depressed
state of mind. There are also suggestions that Alekhine's behaviour
away from the playing arena may have caused some problems." (p. 693)

It seems incredible to think that Alekhine would have thought the Nazis were
behaving in Poland the same way they were in France - though he would
certainly not be alone in a naive appraisal - and whether this Krakow visit
was naive, but became a causal factor for him to leave the occupied zones,
or whether Alekhine was truly asocially indifferent to much beyond chess, is
a subject that a psychologically capable researcher might investigate.

Indeed. My own guess, for what it's worth, is that the Poland visit
did increase AA's desire to leave Nazi-occupied Europe.

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


On Jan 17, 8:25 am, "Chess One" wrote:
The issue of whether he wrote them seems always contested, but wasn't a
version in his own hand found at his home? In fact under his own bed, and
by
his wife?

Our Phil, as usual, shows himself not very well informed. Despite
links to Winter's article "Was Alekhine a Nazi?" (
www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine.html )being posted in this
thread now, and several other times in the past, and despite the fact
that the first version of the article appeared back in 1989, Innes
apparently has not bothered to read it.

So many apparently comments already! Why does Kingston have to suppose so
poorly on behalf of other peoples writing, and cite the Winter as being some
source of resolution? I think Kingston knows very much indeed about chess,
but he doesn't understand much of what he knows.

Winter in fact does not decide if this material exists or not - and surely,
there it is unclear what motivation anyone would have for publishing it?

The same issue came up when Ken Whylde was investigating Alekhine, and while
Ken was impatient and a sort of conviction-historian, he neverthless
admitted to me that it was an uncertain business accessing or verifying
these documents - since there would be more reasons for family, eg, to
obscure them than to expose them.

If he had, he would know that
these alleged manuscripts in Alekhine's hand have never been shown to
the world. We have only the uncorroborated testimony of two people,
only one of whom is now living, that the manuscripts ever existed. And
their testimony has been rather inconsistent, as Winter points out:

"Brian Reilly, then the Editor of the BCM, had told them in 1956 that
he had just seen the articles. However, this is denied by Reilly, whose
eagerly-awaited biography of Alekhine will doubtless provide his
account of the matter. [Brian Reilly died in 1991, and his work on
Alekhine has not been published.]"

Exactly the same fate and circumstance be-falling Whylde.

"In C.N. 1920 we ... commented: 'It is a pity that Mr Le Monnier
did not answer our straightforward point: if in 1958 he saw an article
in Alekhine's own hand, why, some 15 years later, did he write that
'it will never be known whether Alekhine was behind these articles
...'?"

It seems

Does it? All that 'seems' from the above is that there is no proof that is
publicly available.

Le Monnier has never shown the manuscript he claims to
possess, and apparently (assuming it does exist) it will not be shown
until at least 2017, and then only if Alekhine's heirs consent.

Quite. Which is why I wrote with so many question marks in the header of
this thread. What for me is a question, is for Kingston something certain.

The PZ articles are rather strange, since they begin in usual fashion,
disparaging everything Jewish and are different only in that they are
less-crude than typical defamation materials, but they do address and
disparage 'Jewish Chess', but towards the end of the articles Alekhine
mentions players he knows by name, to except them from the general
criticism
he made earlier - to the extent that a careful read seems to promote a
negative view of Jewish Chess which he then deflates by excepting actual
players he knows.

Your reading of the articles differs from mine.

I bet it does. Then again your reading of Gulko's refusenik status differs
from mine, since I don't mind mentioning a bit of official jew-beating from
the soviets, and don't understand why the Oxford should gloss it. That, at
least, is no guess nor theory.

It seems to me that
when they got to specific players, special effort was made to portray
them as examples of the despised "Jewish Chess," even when the player's
actual style did not fit the mold at all. For example, the #1 tenet of
"Jewish Chess" was supposedly "material gain at all costs." The
contortions employed to try to fit such sacrifice-oriented players as
Janowski, Mieses, and Spielmann, and such a master of attack as
Botvinnik, into this "materialistic" style, were truly ludicrous.

And if anyone had read Alekhine's own writing, how uncharacteristic of him
to appear 'ludicrous' - he is most exactingly acute. Kingston - and to be
fair, is quizzing a questionable issue - though concludes that in his
reading there is not heavy irony in presenting a racial thesis, and them
illustrating it by 'ludicrous' example. shrug


It has always seemed a more serious indictment of Alekhine to discuss the
circumstances of his visit to Poland. The Paris Zeitinger articles ...

Phil, please learn to spell. It's "Zeitung," which means newspaper in
German. I don't believe there is any such word as "Zeitinger" in German
-- at least neither my dictionary nor Babelfish show it. And the "er"
belongs at the end of Paris. "Pariser Zeitung" means "the newspaper of
Paris."

But to go to Krakow in 1942 was quite different,

You are referring, I suppose, to the Third General Government
Tournament, 11-24 October 1942. That was held mainly in Warsaw and
Lublin. Just the last two of its eleven rounds were in Cracow.

and even though he played
Bogo a great game there [A 6. h4 French, introduced at Mannheim 1914 says
AA], the man he played skittles with and accepted hospitality from, was a
dark lord indeed - the butcher of Krakow - Hans Franck.

Frank.

How is it possible to read all that and comment on German spellings alone?
Which BTW I have seen spelled Franck.

He also played in
Prague in 1943 and then left northern Europe.

Not immediately. The Prague event ended 29 April 1943. Alekhine
played, and tied for for 1st with Keres, in a tournament at Salzburg
9-18 June. He did not get to Spain until October.

This Krakow reference is usually glossed in biographies and histories,
and I
wonder if anyone knows more context or has read any published record of
his
visit?

There is a brief account on page 689 of "Alexander Alekhine's Chess
Games 1902-1946" by Skinner and Verhoeven, but it mentions little about
Frank, mainly that he sponsored and helped organize the event, and
personally donated three "best game" prizes, two of which Alekhine won.

It doesn't mention between the rounds he was hanging the population from
telegraph poles, and getting the rest into KZs. That is brief mention.

Of Alekhine's personal feelings about the Poland visit, little is
said, though there is this tentative but telling epilogue:

"The state of his health was another factor that may have been
responsible for his fluctuating form. At this time, some reports hint
that he was over indulging in alcohol and was very often in a depressed
state of mind. There are also suggestions that Alekhine's behaviour
away from the playing arena may have caused some problems." (p. 693)

Euphemism. But this is not quite to grasp the nettle of what I wrote and
knowledge of the barbarity then occuring in Poland, and why AA should
actually play a few games with 'the butcher' in the evenings.

It seems incredible to think that Alekhine would have thought the Nazis
were
behaving in Poland the same way they were in France - though he would
certainly not be alone in a naive appraisal - and whether this Krakow
visit
was naive, but became a causal factor for him to leave the occupied
zones,
or whether Alekhine was truly asocially indifferent to much beyond chess,
is
a subject that a psychologically capable researcher might investigate.

Indeed. My own guess, for what it's worth, is that the Poland visit
did increase AA's desire to leave Nazi-occupied Europe.

I have written with a few people who have investigated these issues - either
from the p.o.v. of writing chess histories, or biographical material. It is
necessary for any Life to appreciate both the light and the dark of such a
character, and for many people imagination fails completely, both of the
dynamics of the man, and the life of his times.

Phil Innes

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 17, 8:25 am, "Chess One" wrote:
The Paris Zeitinger articles ...

Phil, please learn to spell. It's "Zeitung," which means newspaper
in German. I don't believe there is any such word as "Zeitinger" in
German -- at least neither my dictionary nor Babelfish show it. And
the "er" belongs at the end of Paris. "Pariser Zeitung" means "the
newspaper of Paris."

Your knowledge of German is irrelevant, here. As everybody but you
seems to know, the _Paris Zeitinger_ is an Andean-language newspaper.
This is proved by Google, which gives 424 hits for `Paris Zeitinger'.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Evil Expensive Monk (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a man of God but it'll break the bank
and it's genuinely evil!

On Jan 17, 10:31 am, "Chess One" wrote:

"Taylor Kingston" wrotein

Our Phil, as usual, shows himself not very well informed. Despite
links to Winter's article "Was Alekhine a Nazi?" (
www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine.html) being posted in this
thread now, and several other times in the past, and despite the fact
that the first version of the article appeared back in 1989, Innes
apparently has not bothered to read it.

Winter in fact does not decide if this material exists or not ...

Exactly my point, Phil. That's why I presented Winter's article in
answer to *_your_* saying "wasn't a version in his own hand found at
his home? In fact under his own bed, and by his wife?"
We have no tangible evidence of this, just the unverified and
inconsistent testimony of two people. Your question indicated you did
not know this. I thought you might like to be enlightened.

Chess One wrote:
The issue of whether he wrote them seems always contested, but wasn't a
version in his own hand found at his home? In fact under his own bed, and by
his wife? Why would he even keep a copy, and why there, subject to
discovery?


Even if they were found to exist, I again ask what would any of us
do if our wives were being threatened.

Does your copy include or subsume material from "107 Great Chess Battles,
1939-1945" ? Edward Winter [ed. and translator], and which acknowledges in
the preface Bernard Cafferty's contribution 'for clearing up a number of
obscure points'. (Though it is not said which points Winter found obscure in
1979).


No this is a seperate book by dover. My book contains about 200 games

The title mentions the character of many famous players, and is perhaps also
notable for -not- making any comments like those in the two paragraphs
above. Not even the slightest whiff of differentiating comment based on
ethnicity.

I find the whole idea of ethnicity in how you play rather strange. Yes
there
are 'school' of playing (ie russian) but to group a widespread ethnic
group
such as Jewish people are is just rediculous.

But to go to Krakow in 1942 was quite different, and even though he played
Bogo a great game there [A 6. h4 French, introduced at Mannheim 1914 says
AA], the man he played skittles with and accepted hospitality from, was a
dark lord indeed - the butcher of Krakow - Hans Franck. He also played in
Prague in 1943 and then left northern Europe.

Did he know him as a butcher? Still even though he might have had
some inclination of this, if such a person wanted to play him a game
I doubt he could have refused.


It seems incredible to think that Alekhine would have thought the Nazis were
behaving in Poland the same way they were in France - though he would
certainly not be alone in a naive appraisal - and whether this Krakow visit
was naive, but became a causal factor for him to leave the occupied zones,
or whether Alekhine was truly asocially indifferent to much beyond chess, is
a subject that a psychologically capable researcher might investigate.

perhaps he was just trying to live his life as normally as possible.
He went
to this tournament because it was there. Many people in wartimes try
to
do this.

In my edition of Alexander Alekhines best games of chess. The forward
to
the 'second book' is done by J.Du Mont. who
makes the claim that Alekhine denied writing those
articles.

Inconnux wrote:
Chess One wrote:
The issue of whether he wrote them seems always contested, but wasn't a
version in his own hand found at his home? In fact under his own bed, and by
his wife? Why would he even keep a copy, and why there, subject to
discovery?


Even if they were found to exist, I again ask what would any of us
do if our wives were being threatened.

Does your copy include or subsume material from "107 Great Chess Battles,
1939-1945" ? Edward Winter [ed. and translator], and which acknowledges in
the preface Bernard Cafferty's contribution 'for clearing up a number of
obscure points'. (Though it is not said which points Winter found obscure in
1979).


No this is a seperate book by dover. My book contains about 200 games

The title mentions the character of many famous players, and is perhaps also
notable for -not- making any comments like those in the two paragraphs
above. Not even the slightest whiff of differentiating comment based on
ethnicity.

I find the whole idea of ethnicity in how you play rather strange. Yes
there
are 'school' of playing (ie russian) but to group a widespread ethnic
group
such as Jewish people are is just rediculous.

But to go to Krakow in 1942 was quite different, and even though he played
Bogo a great game there [A 6. h4 French, introduced at Mannheim 1914 says
AA], the man he played skittles with and accepted hospitality from, was a
dark lord indeed - the butcher of Krakow - Hans Franck. He also played in
Prague in 1943 and then left northern Europe.

Did he know him as a butcher? Still even though he might have had
some inclination of this, if such a person wanted to play him a game
I doubt he could have refused.


It seems incredible to think that Alekhine would have thought the Nazis were
behaving in Poland the same way they were in France - though he would
certainly not be alone in a naive appraisal - and whether this Krakow visit
was naive, but became a causal factor for him to leave the occupied zones,
or whether Alekhine was truly asocially indifferent to much beyond chess, is
a subject that a psychologically capable researcher might investigate.



perhaps he was just trying to live his life as normally as possible.
He went
to this tournament because it was there. Many people in wartimes try
to
do this.

I think this is a very good point. When one is trapped in unfriendly
territory you may be obliged to modify your ethics to fit the situation
in order to stay alive.Based upon his style of play I would hazard a
guess that he surmized that to simply allow the NAZI's this bit of
propaganda would hurt noone. It is not as if Alekhine was participating
in or condoning the elimination of a race, so far as I know. If he did
do that then I would have no sympathy for his position.

Rob




In my edition of Alexander Alekhines best games of chess. The forward
to
the 'second book' is done by J.Du Mont. who
makes the claim that Alekhine denied writing those
articles.

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


On Jan 17, 10:31 am, "Chess One" wrote:

"Taylor Kingston" wrotein

Our Phil, as usual, shows himself not very well informed. Despite
links to Winter's article "Was Alekhine a Nazi?" (
www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine.html) being posted in this
thread now, and several other times in the past, and despite the fact
that the first version of the article appeared back in 1989, Innes
apparently has not bothered to read it.

Winter in fact does not decide if this material exists or not ...

Exactly my point, Phil. That's why I presented Winter's article in
answer to *_your_* saying "wasn't a version in his own hand found at
his home? In fact under his own bed, and by his wife?"
We have no tangible evidence of this, just the unverified and
inconsistent testimony of two people. Your question indicated you did
not know this. I thought you might like to be enlightened.

My question referred to my and Winter's doubt of this. Why Kingston once
again make suppositions and issue certainties on what even his hero says is
unexplained? Sure - a bit of quick celebrity, lacking any research his own
or new knowledge that helps determine it.

And its not your point - its my point, or question, since I raised it here.
If it is so sure for you, surer than Winter's question, by all means
enlighten us further. My question raised the issue of how we know what we
know - a common subject with real researchers. Do you in fact know more than
Winter? You consistently cut the content of these materials, even to the
extent of not acknowledging that there would be a reason to withhold them!

What a farce you make of every inquiry - how petty you have become - ever
since the dreadful face-slap by Evans for the same argumentative process,
also lacking any means or true curiosity to resolve the issue. What don't
you team up with Richerby who shares your ignorance of Andean Spanish, and
blame that too on someone else?

You are an hysteric, man! But if you want to consistently cut these comments
for entertainment value, then clown away! Many people will be impressed!

Phil Innes