On Aug 21, 1:55*am, wrote:
wrote:
* * *At the moment, our Nemmers is serving a central
regime that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
and other innocents in -- to use a phrase that the Old
Menshevik Martov employed to describe Bolshevism --
"war en permanence." *Which is to say, the war on terror,
which has no definition for victory and which will never end
until the American people, still further impoverished by massive
*public spending and its misallocation or resources, rise up and
*demand that we attend to our own business rather than run
military bases in a hundred or more countries.

Yours, Larry Parr

Larry, would you care to document that number, or did you read it on a
Kool-Aid package? Even far-left sites (like iraqbodycount.org), which
we may assume estimate high, claim civilian casualties well under
100,000. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with chess. Why
don't you take it over to Daily Kos (if you want an echo chamber) or
Lucianne.com (if you want to start a fight)?


Hello John,

I hope all is well --- haven't seen you in about 25 years if I'm not
mistaken!

So you find the figure "well under 100,000" comforting?

Iraq's population is a little less than one tenth of the US
population, so that would be the equivalent of about a million
civilian casualties here.

Also, the figures we see on such sites as iraqbodycount represent
violent deaths only, directly related to miltary and paramilitary
operations. You're probably aware of the Lancet study done some time
ago, which concluded that the total number of excess deaths
attributable to the invasion was 655,000. Proportionally that would be
the equivalent of over 6 million Americans.

Naturally the usual talking heads immediately appeared on various
cable TV shows to dispute the methodology of that study. But they were
rarely very specific about that. In fact the Lancet researchers
scrupulously followed the customary protocols to the point of
fanaticism: they risked their lives to make sure that their sampling
methods were thorough.

I'm reminded of an exchange Dick Cavett had with General Westmoreland
about 40 years ago. Westmoreland disputed some widely circulated
reports of civilian casualties in Vietnam. Cavett replied: So,
General, what level of civilian casualties would you consider
acceptable? Ten thousand? Fifty thousand?

That was a stumper then and it remains a stumper today.

Larry T.

Larry Tapper wrote:
On Aug 21, 1:55 am, wrote:
wrote:
At the moment, our Nemmers is serving a central
regime that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
and other innocents in -- to use a phrase that the Old
Menshevik Martov employed to describe Bolshevism --
"war en permanence." Which is to say, the war on terror,
which has no definition for victory and which will never end
until the American people, still further impoverished by massive
public spending and its misallocation or resources, rise up and
demand that we attend to our own business rather than run
military bases in a hundred or more countries.
Yours, Larry Parr
Larry, would you care to document that number, or did you read it on a
Kool-Aid package? Even far-left sites (like iraqbodycount.org), which
we may assume estimate high, claim civilian casualties well under
100,000. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with chess. Why
don't you take it over to Daily Kos (if you want an echo chamber) or
Lucianne.com (if you want to start a fight)?


Hello John,

I hope all is well --- haven't seen you in about 25 years if I'm not
mistaken!

So you find the figure "well under 100,000" comforting?

Iraq's population is a little less than one tenth of the US
population, so that would be the equivalent of about a million
civilian casualties here.

Also, the figures we see on such sites as iraqbodycount represent
violent deaths only, directly related to miltary and paramilitary
operations. You're probably aware of the Lancet study done some time
ago, which concluded that the total number of excess deaths
attributable to the invasion was 655,000. Proportionally that would be
the equivalent of over 6 million Americans.

Naturally the usual talking heads immediately appeared on various
cable TV shows to dispute the methodology of that study. But they were
rarely very specific about that. In fact the Lancet researchers
scrupulously followed the customary protocols to the point of
fanaticism: they risked their lives to make sure that their sampling
methods were thorough.

I'm reminded of an exchange Dick Cavett had with General Westmoreland
about 40 years ago. Westmoreland disputed some widely circulated
reports of civilian casualties in Vietnam. Cavett replied: So,
General, what level of civilian casualties would you consider
acceptable? Ten thousand? Fifty thousand?

That was a stumper then and it remains a stumper today.

Larry T.

Well stated Mr. Tapper. When one country illegally invades another
country, they are responsible for a war crime that not only includes
violent deaths, but also indirectly caused deaths, destruction of the
economy, destruction of the infra structure, dislocation of millions of
citizens and more.

Even if our government were honest enough to state publicly, "Oops!
Sorry, we goofed. Our intelligence was bad." That does not change the
fact that it is a war crime.

There are many other issues here that I would rather not raise in this
newsgroup. I only go this far because we may see similar idiocy hit the
Women's World Championship of chess.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

[...]

I'm reminded of an exchange Dick Cavett had with General Westmoreland
about 40 years ago. Westmoreland disputed some widely circulated
reports of civilian casualties in Vietnam. Cavett replied: So,
General, what level of civilian casualties would you consider
acceptable? Ten thousand? Fifty thousand?

That was a stumper then and it remains a stumper today.

Why? The answer is zero.

However, this also implies no
Westmoreland, McNamara, Bush, Condoleezza Rice, no
Rumsfeld and no Cheney.

And how do you keep these goons from doing their thing?


Larry T.

wrote:
SNIP

Give Mr. Nemmers a sample kit with some Fuller brushes,
a plaid suit, and I have no doubt he could once again drink beer
of an evening in the company of decent men.

SNIP

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Larry, but I already drink beer
quite often in the company of the decent men and women who choose to
serve our country and protect your right to be an arrogant prick.

Regards,

PSC(SW) Matt Nemmers,
United States Navy

Den 2008-08-21 17:03:38 skrev J.D. Walker :



So we are into war and terror now? Why don't you have a look on
some of my online papers:

THE PSYCHODYNAMICS OF TERRORISM

Abstract: Drawing on notions from comparative religion, and also
Freud's discussion of the death drive, light is shed on the
psychodynamic principles behind terrorism, and the bottomless evil of
mankind, in general. Terrorism is not foremostly a political problem,
or a problem deriving from poverty. Nor is it an evil that derives
from unshackled instinctual forces. Terrorism, and the even greater
problem of bullying and victimization of our peers, derive from an
archaic psychic economy of sin transference. Following St Paul, people
can be vaccinated against this evil, by forsaking ideological
grandiose ideals; by giving up the search for the perfect, blissful,
condition of outer life, and instead learn that 'the kingdom is
within.'

Keywords: terrorism, theocracy, human sacrifice, transfer of sin,
Khidr, The Green Man, St Paul, death drive, genocide.

Read the fulla article he
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/terror.htm

-----------------

THE BLOOD SACRIFICE

remarks on the symbolism and psychology

Abstract: Victimization as a form of sacrificial ritual is discussed.
It is understood as an inferior and archaic method of ego
emancipation. By the destructive deed original wholeness is disrupted
and transfer of sin and guilt occurs. The blood sacrifice originates
as a defense against the fear of an overwhelming unconscious. Power
over life and death is imparted to the institution of consciousness.
By that means an identification with collective consciousness is
promoted and a weak consciousness strengthened. The regressive bond to
the unconscious is temporarily severed, but the sacrifice must be
renewed. It is the real impetus behind Freud's death drive and also
the destructive narcissistic relationship.

Keywords: rite of passage, self-mutilation, primal transgression, ego
wholeness, flagellants, amputation disorder, sin transference,
St Paul, Tezcatlipoca.

Read the fulla article he
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/bloodsac.htm

----------------------



Well stated Mr. Tapper. When one country illegally invades another
country, they are responsible for a war crime that not only includes
violent deaths, but also indirectly caused deaths, destruction of the
economy, destruction of the infra structure, dislocation of millions of
citizens and more.

Even if our government were honest enough to state publicly, "Oops!
Sorry, we goofed. Our intelligence was bad." That does not change the
fact that it is a war crime.

There are many other issues here that I would rather not raise in this
newsgroup. I only go this far because we may see similar idiocy hit the
Women's World Championship of chess.

M. Winther wrote:
Den 2008-08-21 17:03:38 skrev J.D. Walker :

So we are into war and terror now? Why don't you have a look on
some of my online papers:

THE PSYCHODYNAMICS OF TERRORISM

Abstract: Drawing on notions from comparative religion, and also
Freud's discussion of the death drive, light is shed on the
psychodynamic principles behind terrorism, and the bottomless evil of
mankind, in general. Terrorism is not foremostly a political problem,
or a problem deriving from poverty. Nor is it an evil that derives
from unshackled instinctual forces. Terrorism, and the even greater
problem of bullying and victimization of our peers, derive from an
archaic psychic economy of sin transference. Following St Paul, people
can be vaccinated against this evil, by forsaking ideological
grandiose ideals; by giving up the search for the perfect, blissful,
condition of outer life, and instead learn that 'the kingdom is
within.'

Keywords: terrorism, theocracy, human sacrifice, transfer of sin,
Khidr, The Green Man, St Paul, death drive, genocide.

Read the fulla article he
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/terror.htm

-----------------

THE BLOOD SACRIFICE

remarks on the symbolism and psychology

Abstract: Victimization as a form of sacrificial ritual is discussed.
It is understood as an inferior and archaic method of ego
emancipation. By the destructive deed original wholeness is disrupted
and transfer of sin and guilt occurs. The blood sacrifice originates
as a defense against the fear of an overwhelming unconscious. Power
over life and death is imparted to the institution of consciousness.
By that means an identification with collective consciousness is
promoted and a weak consciousness strengthened. The regressive bond to
the unconscious is temporarily severed, but the sacrifice must be
renewed. It is the real impetus behind Freud's death drive and also
the destructive narcissistic relationship.

Keywords: rite of passage, self-mutilation, primal transgression, ego
wholeness, flagellants, amputation disorder, sin transference,
St Paul, Tezcatlipoca.

Read the fulla article he
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/bloodsac.htm

Interesting. Worthy of a second read. Thanks.

----------------------

Well stated Mr. Tapper. When one country illegally invades another
country, they are responsible for a war crime that not only includes
violent deaths, but also indirectly caused deaths, destruction of the
economy, destruction of the infra structure, dislocation of millions of
citizens and more.

Even if our government were honest enough to state publicly, "Oops!
Sorry, we goofed. Our intelligence was bad." That does not change the
fact that it is a war crime.

There are many other issues here that I would rather not raise in this
newsgroup. I only go this far because we may see similar idiocy hit the
Women's World Championship of chess.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

"ChessVariant Inventor"
wrote in message ...



Of course, it's a matter of taste. I don't think these chess
variants have much popularity, or will.


I see, but instead of inventing your own game, you rather present half
baked ideas to a forum and dictate that all chess players follow them.

Instead of signing your own name you browbeat other people who are content
with chess as it is, as you have in many forums?

The thing is, you do not acknowledge that your correspondent has a different
orientation than you? - but instead of allowing him his interest in chess
you blame him for it. Can that possibly be a sincere attempt at dialog? It
sounds like hype to me.

The point is that the "opening theory problem" can be solved directly.
There is no need to throw away 100s of years of chess history.


Which is essentially what your idea forces. Two people cannot even
start a game of chess from move 1.

What? I am a strong player, and what /I/ say is that many people cannot
understand much of chess - and its easy to defeat them, no matter how much
they know of 'theory' because actually they still know relatively little,
and understand less.

Perhaps you do not intend your comment to be taken literally, that "Two
people cannot even start a game of chess from move 1." whereas I suspect the
rest of this newsgroup would find that a puzzling statement or premise,
since they can start a game from move 1, and must begin at move 1.

So where are you personally in all this? And I do mean you.

Are you inhibited from playing chess because, for example, I am stronger
than you, and you think this is almost all to do with opening knowledge? Is
that it? You gain no enjoyment from this, so you think by eliminating
opening knowledge by any means would level the field? Is that your
proposition?

Phil Innes





As far as the details of how to implement my idea, I don't have
much to say. The point is that we could start with 1000 (or 100
or 10000 whatever) essentially independent positions, then
the strategy of "get good at chess by studying the opening
position" becomes less feasible. I personally don't see any
advantage to making the starting positions "weird". It's an
unnecessary change.

This is your problem. You don't have the details, but you seem to think
that people should just listen to you anyway.
Chess variants encompass not just new pieces, new board but minor rule
changes and changes to chess. -So any change to the rules of chess is
by definition a chess variant whether you like it or not. And yes,
these are not popular especially if they are not well thought up.

Bobby Fischer essentially made shuffle chess playable for many by
introducing the castling rules. Throwing out the more awkward starting
positions would be an excellent improvement and solution to the problem


An even simpler idea is to switch the king and queen for one side. This
essentially restarts opening theory too.
I suppose the law that
color advantage cannot be compensated for by alternate
scoring is to be found in scripture somewhere?

What color advantage? Only very strong players take advantage of the
initiative. Why should the scoring be changed because you dont like
white winning more times than black?
What scripture are you following - the colors should be equal? How
about designing a new turn based game where there is no advantage for
the first player?




--
ChessVariant Inventor

BODY COUNTS

Larry, would you care to document that number, or
did you read it on a Kool-Aid package? Even far-left sites (like
like iraqbodycount.org), which we may assume estimate high,
claim civilian casualties well under 100,000. -- John Hillery

John Hillery's reaction was expectable. One
thing: it is not merely left-wing anti-American sites
that put the number of Iraqis killed or dead because
of our invasion at many hundreds of thousands, but
also conservative (yes, conservative!) Taft-Republican
sites such as www.antiwar.com and www.lewrockwell.com

To be sure antiwar.com is very conservative
indeed -- a child of the thinking of libertarians and
Taft Republicans of what is called the Old Right,
which opposed American interventionism around the globe.

A thorough discussion of casualties in Iraq can
be found at Wikipedia.

We invaded a country that never attacked the
United States and wreaked havoc. We are now paying
the bill in terms of trillions of dollars (counting
opportunity costs). No rational and even
semi-rational analysis can call the war anything other
than a disaster for all concerned, except to be sure,
for al-Qaeda and numerous terrorist groups who have
grown fat on our bloody blundering.

Yours, Larry Parr



wrote:
wrote:

At the moment, our Nemmers is serving a central
regime that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
and other innocents in -- to use a phrase that the Old
Menshevik Martov employed to describe Bolshevism --
"war en permanence." Which is to say, the war on terror,
which has no definition for victory and which will never end
until the American people, still further impoverished by massive
public spending and its misallocation or resources, rise up and
demand that we attend to our own business rather than run
military bases in a hundred or more countries.

Yours, Larry Parr


Larry, would you care to document that number, or did you read it on a
Kool-Aid package? Even far-left sites (like iraqbodycount.org), which
we may assume estimate high, claim civilian casualties well under
100,000. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with chess. Why
don't you take it over to Daily Kos (if you want an echo chamber) or
Lucianne.com (if you want to start a fight)?

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
...
wrote:
SNIP

Give Mr. Nemmers a sample kit with some Fuller brushes,
a plaid suit, and I have no doubt he could once again drink beer
of an evening in the company of decent men.

SNIP

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Larry, but I already drink beer
quite often in the company of the decent men and women who choose to
serve our country and protect your right to be an arrogant prick.

And that is how it should be. Absolutely. I also served, and served all
sorts, and it was sometimes 'hot'. Like your country I took an oath to serve
the people, not expecting them to 'support the troops', but was paid to
support their wishes.

That is currently, and for some time had not been the current policy, or any
majority wish of the people.

Since I have been on both sides of this, Matt, I can say I understood the
guy who outranked Ollie North who threw his congressional medal of honor on
the floor of the senate committee's investigation, saying that North spoke
to protect the president, would even take the fall for the President, but
this was not his oath as an officer to protect the people. He will not pick
up his medal till North discards his uniform.

Of course, this is tense stuff. Emotional. Some like to excite it from
their genuine sense of what is right or wrong, or even legal. Others from
lesser motive, would **** with you about it.

When you are 'in' you do not choose, you do need to just believe that orders
are decent, and you do not have the means to determine if they are, or are
not. You can't put your arse on the line if you don't.

That is the conundrum here. And you might hear another voice to these issues
which you do not like? Yet as you say, the great thing about the service is
that you protect that voice's expression, in fact, that is your reason to
exist.

Tough to explain to those never 'in' what that means.

Heuch! Not tough -is it possible?

Be cool, come home if you can, and be true to yourself first. That is the
prayer we might offer serving troops. We civvies cannot know much of what it
is about, but we can know something of the worth of which we expose you and
the country - all are citizens here, and all may speak their conscience.
That is why we fight.

Sorry, not 2cents, 10

Cordially, Phil Innes

Regards,

PSC(SW) Matt Nemmers,
United States Navy

"Chess One" wrote in message
. ..

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
...
wrote:
SNIP

Give Mr. Nemmers a sample kit with some Fuller brushes,
a plaid suit, and I have no doubt he could once again drink beer
of an evening in the company of decent men.

SNIP

Dear Larry Parr,

Since I have redressed, to some degree Mr. Nemmers, it would be unjust not
to offer you the same. Here it is, and as much felt:

It is their duty to serve their officers, and to their sense of what is at
stake as represented by them. To attempt to engage an NCO who decides merely
tactical matters, not strategic ones, especially not global ones of the
verisitudes of the war, is to combat entirely the wrong level of things.
That is my correction to your message.

Men have hot things fly by their ear, which they do not know the cause
thereof, but the certain effect it has, and this has radical effect on their
being, and their orientation to their country. It is not any argument to
them over politics, but flesh and blood, theirs and their friends.

No serviceman can who has experienced such heat can /feel/ otherwise.

This is not Eric Blair in Burma. It is not 'to kill an elephant'. Hardly
anyone would understand that reference. You will.

I think for so public a contradiction I offer you here I should also say
that it is for you to maintain your right senses of what is decent, which I
do not dispute that you already do, but that to engage such things with a
serving NCO is not any liberty he is capable of appreciating. Neither are
you capable of knowing the heat which passed by his ear, nor understand what
flesh and blood is decided by distant words of others who compel his
presence in their decision.

I say these things respectfully, since after all, these are matters of huge
import. They are unlikely [lol] resolved here in a public newsgroup about
chess praxis by any such simple intercession as I attempt. But they
supercede it in my mind, so I take this here licence to contradict thee, the
same as I did to Matt Nemmers.

It says "We The People",

and what is meant by that? Certainly not only some white slave-owning males
of property. Is it certain that it means only current Americans? That is the
issue the world now discusses, and it is a fine thing. A great sentiment.
Something to fight for - but how so?

Cordially, Phil Innes