Google hasn't yet posted sandirhodes' reply discussing Nick's explanation.
However, I'll take a quick moment to comment. Viewed from the outside, this
appears to me to be a spat over a mistake (though not the one Nick claims)
that doesn't deserve the rancor. Sandi (Royce; I don't know you so I'll
use your posting name), when I read your response, "Nor I.", I truly thought
you were saying what Nick claimed (that you also weren't amused), despite
recognizing your willingness to engage in pedantic discussions of the english
language (not a slam). Currently, I believe you were correcting his use of
"or". However, when I read your initial response to Nick, I paused, thinking
you were being hyperbolic. Why? You do have a point that by inserting the
parenthetical comment between the quotes, Nick has made it appear as if you
wrote that (especially to someone not following the thread), however, I hadn't
even considered the alternative, you correcting him, and thought that what he
said was a fair comment and appropriate to use (again, this opinion was formed
with self-induced incomplete information). I certainly found DePalma's
comment to be rude and insensitive so I didn't find it unusual to think that
you, a thoughtful poster, might also think that. I also knew that you hadn't
said what was in the parentheses (although I thought it was what you intended).

Nick, it is clear that you have misrepresented sandi's post (in the original
thread, he clarified that he was not saying he agreed with you). Your intent
is unclear, and to me personally, can easily be explained by the blindness
I experienced w.r.t. the alternative meaning of "Nor I." However, now that
you know what was intended, and that your comment strongly changed the intent,
why do you find it difficult to apologize? Would you still make the comment
you did, in the way you did, given that you now know his intent? You complain
about being chastized for a simple typo in copying the quote. I do think
the conclusion, it _might_ have been intentional, is not unreasonable to make,
especially when one doesn't recognize that another meaning might be missed by
a reader/responder (as I did). Why? Consider the two posts:

taken from the lapshun thread:
"Angelo DePalma's offensive statement (above) is evidently an allusion to
the recent terrorist bombings in Madrid, which killed hundreds of persons.

I have a friend (in real life) from Spain.
Neither she or I are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling."

your 'mistyped' copy:
"Then I wrote in my response (1 April 2004) to Angelo DePalma:
"Angelo DePalma's offensive statement (above) is evidently an allusion to
the recent terrorist bombings in Madrid, which killed hundreds of persons.
I have a friend (in real life) from Spain.
Neither she nor I are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling...."


Note the formatting, especially the shortened line ending with "Spain." This
verbatim formatting suggests, not proves, that a cut and paste was done.
I wouldn't fault anyone for making that conclusion. Thus, the three changes
(or-nor, dropped blank line, "...") look intentional. That, coupled with
the effect that your changes had (to _change_ the meaning of sandi's comment),
go a long way to explain the rancor your comment received. However, you should
take more care NOT to insert your parenthetical comments between the quotes
of sources you cite. That can very easily be misread and looks intentional.


So, my _personal_ current belief is that Nick shortsightedly misinterpreted
sandi's comment and later used it to justify another argument, not recognizing
that he was (grossly) mischaraterizing sandi's intent. In attempting to
clean up an earlier mistake (or-nor), he added fuel to the suspicion it was
intentional because the change eliminated the _other_ (intended) interpretation
of the phrase in question ("innocently", not recognizing that interpretation).
Sandi, not hampered by the lack of understanding, got peeved because he made
conclusions that a reasonable person might make, and cited valid evidence
(Nick corrected an error without comment, misconstrued intent, and added text
that made it look like sandi explicitly stated support for him). To him,
Nick's actions look(ed) deceptive, requiring an apology/explanation to restore
him to good graces. I'm willing to concede no-ill-intentions on either's part
but do think a more straightforward apology from Nick is in order.

But what do I know. I'm not a USCF member and shouldn't comment. (That's an
echo of earlier discussions to bring in an image of the hell-tortures of
threads like this that get out of hand...)

K



(Nick) wrote in message . com...
Royce, I have attempted to reply comprehensively to your many points of
concern, but I expect that it's possible that I may have overlooked some
point that you regard as significant. If you have any further questions
about my meaning, then please address those questions to me rather than
making more unwarranted assumptions about me. Thanks.

"sandirhodes" wrote:
"Nick" wrote
"Angelo DePalma" wrote:
Here's a genuine troll post, prompted by his mentioning me:

If Angelo DePalma would prefer me not to cite some of the evidence
of *his earlier trolling*, then he should *not* have practised
*his trolling* of me in the first place(s).

In the thread, "Lapshun's Complaint" (31 March 2004), Angelo DePalma wrote
in his conclusion to me:
"Now go blow up a train station and leave me alone.
Angelo"

Then I wrote in my response (1 April 2004) to Angelo DePalma:
"Angelo DePalma's offensive statement (above) is evidently an allusion to
the recent terrorist bombings in Madrid, which killed hundreds of persons.
I have a friend (in real life) from Spain.
Neither she nor I are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling...."

The last sentence was miscopied in my typing from
"Neither she or I are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling...."

Then Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') wrote in response to my last statement
(above) about Angelo DePalma's trolling:
"Nor I (am 'amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling')."
--Royce Campbell (2 April 2004)

--Nick

Nick, Nick, Nick. I am afraid you have committed a gross error,

Royce, the sentence to which you have objected was *miscopied in my typing*
(it was not 'cut-and-paste')--nothing more--when I was attempting to quote
myself, not you.

Unfortunately, I am *not* perfect at typing when copying texts, particularly
when I am under the many pressures of a busy life. I have made some errors
in my typing when copying texts, and I have been trolled because of them.

rest snipped for sanity

A very well thought out post, and one I can live with. As far as I am concerned, regardless of Nick's reactions, I am through with
this thread.

REC, aka sandirhodes

"kg" wrote
Google hasn't yet posted sandirhodes' reply discussing Nick's explanation.
However, I'll take a quick moment to comment. Viewed from the outside, this
appears to me to be a spat over a mistake (though not the one Nick claims)
that doesn't deserve the rancor. Sandi (Royce; I don't know you so I'll
use your posting name), when I read your response, "Nor I.", I truly thought
you were saying what Nick claimed (that you also weren't amused), despite
recognizing your willingness to engage in pedantic discussions of the english
language (not a slam). Currently, I believe you were correcting his use of
"or". However, when I read your initial response to Nick, I paused, thinking
you were being hyperbolic. Why? You do have a point that by inserting the
parenthetical comment between the quotes, Nick has made it appear as if you
wrote that (especially to someone not following the thread), however, I hadn't
even considered the alternative, you correcting him, and thought that what he
said was a fair comment and appropriate to use (again, this opinion was formed
with self-induced incomplete information). I certainly found DePalma's
comment to be rude and insensitive so I didn't find it unusual to think that
you, a thoughtful poster, might also think that. I also knew that you hadn't
said what was in the parentheses (although I thought it was what you intended).

Nick, it is clear that you have misrepresented sandi's post (in the original
thread, he clarified that he was not saying he agreed with you). Your intent
is unclear, and to me personally, can easily be explained by the blindness
I experienced w.r.t. the alternative meaning of "Nor I." However, now that
you know what was intended, and that your comment strongly changed the intent,
why do you find it difficult to apologize? Would you still make the comment
you did, in the way you did, given that you now know his intent? You complain
about being chastized for a simple typo in copying the quote. I do think
the conclusion, it _might_ have been intentional, is not unreasonable to make,
especially when one doesn't recognize that another meaning might be missed by
a reader/responder (as I did). Why? Consider the two posts:

taken from the lapshun thread:
"Angelo DePalma's offensive statement (above) is evidently an allusion to
the recent terrorist bombings in Madrid, which killed hundreds of persons.

I have a friend (in real life) from Spain.
Neither she or I are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling."

your 'mistyped' copy:
"Then I wrote in my response (1 April 2004) to Angelo DePalma:
"Angelo DePalma's offensive statement (above) is evidently an allusion to
the recent terrorist bombings in Madrid, which killed hundreds of persons.
I have a friend (in real life) from Spain.
Neither she nor I are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling...."


Note the formatting, especially the shortened line ending with "Spain." This
verbatim formatting suggests, not proves, that a cut and paste was done.
I wouldn't fault anyone for making that conclusion. Thus, the three changes
(or-nor, dropped blank line, "...") look intentional. That, coupled with
the effect that your changes had (to _change_ the meaning of sandi's comment),
go a long way to explain the rancor your comment received. However, you should
take more care NOT to insert your parenthetical comments between the quotes
of sources you cite. That can very easily be misread and looks intentional.


So, my _personal_ current belief is that Nick shortsightedly misinterpreted
sandi's comment and later used it to justify another argument, not recognizing
that he was (grossly) mischaraterizing sandi's intent. In attempting to
clean up an earlier mistake (or-nor), he added fuel to the suspicion it was
intentional because the change eliminated the _other_ (intended) interpretation
of the phrase in question ("innocently", not recognizing that interpretation).
Sandi, not hampered by the lack of understanding, got peeved because he made
conclusions that a reasonable person might make, and cited valid evidence
(Nick corrected an error without comment, misconstrued intent, and added text
that made it look like sandi explicitly stated support for him). To him,
Nick's actions look(ed) deceptive, requiring an apology/explanation to restore
him to good graces. I'm willing to concede no-ill-intentions on either's part
but do think a more straightforward apology from Nick is in order.

But what do I know. I'm not a USCF member and shouldn't comment. (That's an
echo of earlier discussions to bring in an image of the hell-tortures of
threads like this that get out of hand...)

K

(snipped the meat)

Not interested? Don't read it.

"David Richerby" wrote
Does neither of you have anything better to do with your time than post
three hundred lines of petty squabble to a public forum? Does either of
you imagine that anyone is interested in reading it?

I think many people follow this group for just that purpose, however I understand your point, and I will refrain from further
comment in this thread.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):

I make no assumptions.

_
It seems to me that sandirhodes did make
assumptions.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):

Let's see what happened:

"Angelo DePalma" wrote (to Nick):
"Now go blow up a train station and leave me
alone."

"Nick" wrote:
"I have a friend (in real life) from Spain.
Neither she or I are amused at all by Angelo
DePalma's trolling...."

I wrote:
"Nor I."

Then "Nick" wrote:
"Neither she nor I are amused at all by Angelo
DePalma's trolling...."

and attributed my response of "Nor I," to that
corrected sentence, as
follows:

'... Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') wrote in
response to my last statement (above) about
Angelo DePalma's trolling: "Nor I (am 'amused
at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling')."
--Royce Campbell (2 April 2004)'

I complained as follows:
"... Your quote above from April 1 2004 is not
accurate. In fact, the last line of that quote
was "Neither she *or* I (emphasis mine)are amused
at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling." You have
changed this quote in your reply to Angelo, thus
changing the effect of my post. You have also
added a clarification to my post, which is not
accurate (whether or not true).

You made a grammatical error. You corrected
that error without comment. You attempted to
conceal the error with a falsehood. ..."

_
And there it is: an assumption about what Nick
attempted to do - an assumption that strikes me
as unlikely. My best guess about what happened
is:

(1) Nick wrote, "Neither she or I are amused at
all by Angelo DePalma's trolling".

(2) Sandirhodes wrote, "Nor I," intending it
as a correction of "or I".

(3) Nick took the comment as an expression of
agreement with him that Angelo DePalma's
comments were not amusing and therefore
paid no attention to the grammatical matter.


Another part of the sandirhodes (2004-04-07
00:52:28 PST) complaint that he now (2004-04-08
01:30:49 PST) quotes:

"... We may now, it seems, cite this example
ad infinitum concerning you, your integrity,
and, as Mr. Booz might suggest, your
intellectual dishonesty. ..."

_
It does not seem to me that such citing would
be sensible. The most plausible explanation
seems to me to be that the incident was simply
a misunderstanding.


After quoting Nick at length,
sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):

This essay is irrelevant, and inconsistent in
addressing the crux of my complaint.

_
My guess is that this is simply because Nick
did not understand what happened and therefore
did not understand what sandirhodes was
complaining about.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

You have conveniently neglected the point of my
complaint, which is that this 'mistyping' changed
the intent of my post.

_
The use of the word, "conveniently", here suggests
that sandirhodes is again making an assumption
- in this case that the neglect was for the sake
of convenience. It strikes me as more likely that
Nick simply did not understand why sandirhodes
had made the claim about changed intent. The
2004-04-07 00:52:28 PST complaint of sandirhodes
did not explain why the or-nor switch changed the
apparent intent of the comment by sandirhodes.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

you included the clarification within quotes,
thus assigning the parenthetical meaning to
the entire quote. Since you 'then understood'
it as such, do you understand it differently
now?

_
Presumably, sandirhodes asks this question because
he recongnizes the possibility that his 2004-04-07
00:52:28 PST complaint did not successfully convey
to Nick what had gone wrong.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

I have been anything BUT judgmental with you.

_
It seems to me that there has been at least the
appearance of a judgmental attitude in the
references to "integrity" and "intellectual
dishonesty". There was also that use of the
word, "conveniently", that I mentioned above.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

you found it necessary to waste your time,
my time, and the time of anyone else reading
this thread with irrelevant arguments and
pointed rejoinders designed to extricate you
from the web of deceit you have (apparently)
perpetrated here.

_
Judgmental (apparently) again. No "web of
deceit" is apparent to me here. Just a
misunderstanding.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):

A man of integrity would admit his failing
without excuse.

_
Judgmental (apparently) again by inappropriately
raising the issue of "integrity". A person
without integrity might, I suppose, attempt a
"web of deceit", but it is difficult to imagine
what such a person could plausibly hope to gain
when a person like sindirhodes is involved and
all the quotes are available on google.

On the other hand, what Nick posted looks to
me like the sort of thing that would have
been written by someone who simply did not
understand what sandirhodes was complaining
about.


After quoting another Nick paragraph,
sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

Rhetoric, and irrelevent. Don't insult my
intelligence.

_
Judgmental (apparently) again. Sandirhodes
seems to have jumped to the conclusion that
Nick was trying to fool sandirhodes in some
way. Again, it appears to me that Nick simply
did not understand what had gone wrong.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

You are getting warm, but you are not there
yet.

_
At times, it seems that sandirhodes himself is
well aware that Nick did not understand what
had gone wrong. But, in that case, how can
it be sensible to talk of a supposedly
apparent "web of deceit"?


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

you represented [my position] as you saw fit
for your own purposes.

_
Is there any reason to suppose that Nick represented
the position of sandirhodes as anything other what
he perceived it to be?


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

Since I can no longer presume that you will be
intellectually honest when quoting me, ...

_
Judgmental (apparently) again.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

The bottom line seems to be that you might
take whatever liberty you feel is necessary
to back your position, however intellectually
dishonest it may be.

_
Judgmental (apparently) again. This incident
looks like an honest mistake, not intellectual
dishonesty.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):

Adding comments within quoted text falls under
editorializing, or interpreting. Either of
these choices should not be corralled with
the quote, or the author.

_
This sort of thing is done all the time. Here
is an example that I have seen frequently:

"Having spent 200 hours on the above,
the young player, even if he possesses
no special talent for chess, is likely
to be among those two or three thousand
chessplayers [who play on a par with a
master]." - Lasker

As it happens, I disapprove of the interpretation
that has been attached to Lasker's quote by
those last eight words, but I would never
dream of saying that this is a matter of
intellectual dishonesty.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

For the record, I *do* understand how you
may have missed the intention of my post.

_
And I understand how someone who missed the
intention of the post of sandirhodes could
have chosen to present it as Nick did
without any dishonest intentions.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

This isn't a personal issue (yet?), and you
will notice I will not need to resort to
name-calling, etc., under any circumstances.

_
All the references to such things as intellectual
dishonesty seem to me to be morally equivalent
to name-calling.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

Nick, this is a reference to *your* ad infinitum
cites of certain posters here. Are you suggesting
that anyone *else* who would do this is, by your
definition, a troll?

_
As I understand it, Nick was indicating that it
would be troll behavior to present this incident
as a reflection of Nick's "integrity" or as a
demonstration of "intellectual dishonesty". I
think it is safe to suppose that Nick would claim
that he does not, himself, fail to properly
distinguish between mistakes and dishonesty.


Starting with a quote of Nick,
sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

As far as I can tell, the substitution of
'nor' for 'or' makes the sentence sound
more proper in formal English usage, but
it does *not* make a great difference in
its real meaning, which Royce Campbell
insists that it does.

Nope. I insist no such thing. Do you get
some sort of thrill from assigning attitudes
to a person's full name? Royce Campbell
thinks it is presumptuous and rude.

_
Royce Campbell might consider that it is
just the natural result of Nick trying to
understand what sandirhodes is complaining
about.


sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST)
(to Nick):

I sincerely believe that you sincerely
believed what you wrote. However, this
*strictly parenthetical comment* determined
to explain the meaning of my words. Your
semantics do not change the fact that you
were assigning meaning to my words that
suited your purposes. THAT is what is
intellectually dishonest,

_
If Nick sincerely believed that he was
explaining the meaning of the the words
correctly, I do not see how it can be
appropriate to use words like "intellectually
dishonest". A mistake is not dishonesty.


sandirhodes wrote (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):

THAT is ... why I demanded a retraction
(which did not occur) and apology (which
was misplaced).

_
It strikes me as unfair to expect a properly
placed apology from someone who did not
understand the nature of what went wrong.


Starting with a quote of Nick,
sandirhodes wrote (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):

Unfortunately, Royce Campbell seems to have
jumped to the worst possible conclusions about
my motives and made some unwarranted
assumptions about me.

I have only reported what happened and requested
reparation. I do not pretend to define the
meaning of Nick's words. Why does he find it
necessary to define mine?

_
The reference by sandirhodes (on 2004-04-07
00:52:28 PST) to such ideas as "integrity" and
"intellectual dishonesty" may have had something
to do with it.

I have not yet been able to read the latest response(s) of Royce Campbell
('sandirhodes') on my newsreader. Please keep that in mind.

(kg) wrote in message . com...
Google hasn't yet posted sandirhodes' reply discussing Nick's explanation.

Here's how I interpreted what Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes' originally wrote:

In the thread, "Lapshun's Complaint" (1 April 2004), I wrote:
"...I have a friend (in real life) from Spain.
Neither she or I are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling."

Then Royce Campbell wrote to me:
"Nor I."

I thought that the pronoun 'I' referred to Royce Campbell himself.
That made his sentence seem to me as "Nor Royce Campbell" + (implied predicate)

What could that implied predicate be?
The only candidate that came to my mind was the predicate of my last sentence
to which Royce Campbell was responding, "...amused at all by Angelo DePalma's
trolling."

Hence, I *sincerely believed* that Royce Campbell intended to express that
he was *not* "amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling". I believe that
was a quite plausible interpretation of what Royce Campbell wrote.

*In retrospect now*, *if all* that Royce Campbell had intended to express
was to point out a flaw in my English usage of writing "neither she nor I"
rather than "neither she nor I", then he *should have expressed that point
more explicitly by writing more clearly*. Royce Campbell *should have
written* something like: "I am writing *only* to make a point about English
usage. 'Neither she or I' should be written as 'neither she nor I' in formal
English." Then I would have gladly accepted that correction, as I have
accepted some other corrections of my occasional errors in writing here.

I believe that Royce Campbell's original sentence, "Nor I", was so terse
(he *never* mentioned anything about *his only meaning* being to point out
a flaw in my English usage) that his *now evidently intended* meaning was
quite *unclear to me at that time*. I believe that I should *not* be
condemned for having reached a plausible alternative interpretation (as
'kg' *also* did when he initially read Royce Campbell's "Nor I.") of what
I regard as, at best, an ambiguous original sentence by Royce Campbell.

However, I'll take a quick moment to comment. Viewed from the outside, this
appears to me to be a spat over a mistake (though not the one Nick claims)
that doesn't deserve the rancor.

As I have explained (above), I believe that this dispute originated from my
plausible alternative interpretation of a terse and *insufficiently clear*
sentence by Royce Campbell. In my opinion, Royce Campbell then overreacted
by making some unwarranted negative assumptions about my personal motives.

On other occasions, however, I have had no particular difficulties in
communicating with Royce Campbell in cordial terms. And I have generally
thought well of him as a writer in the chess newsgroups.

Sandi (Royce; I don't know you so I'll use your posting name), when I read
your response, "Nor I.", I truly thought you were saying what Nick claimed
(that you also weren't amused),

I also *sincerely believed* that was what Royce Campbell was saying.

despite recognizing your willingness to engage in pedantic discussions of
the english language (not a slam).

I seem to be less familiar than 'kg' with Royce Campbell's apparently many
other 'pedantic discussions of the English language' (also 'not a slam').

Currently, I believe you were correcting his use of "or".

*Only now* have I been able to conclude definitely that was Royce Campbell's
*only original intent*.

However, when I read your initial response to Nick, I paused, thinking
you were being hyperbolic.

I have to say that I was taken aback by how Royce Campbell had immediately
jumped to about the worst possible conclusions about my motives, without
first giving me the opportunity to explain them, as I gradually have begun
to do here.

Why? You do have a point that by inserting the parenthetical comment
between the quotes, Nick has made it appear as if you wrote that

I did *not* intend to make it appear as though Royce Campbell had written
the words in my parenthetical comment. Otherwise, why would I even have
taken the trouble to enclose all those words within parentheses?

(especially to someone not following the thread), however, I hadn't even
considered the alternative, you correcting him,

For the record, like 'kg', I did *not* consider that alternative interpretation
when I originally read Royce Campbell's terse sentence, "Nor I."

and thought that what he said was a fair comment and appropriate to use
(again, this opinion was formed with self-induced incomplete information).
I certainly found DePalma's comment to be rude and insensitive so I didn't
find it unusual to think that you, a thoughtful poster, might also think
that.

I also *sincerely believed* that Royce Campbell was *not* "amused at all
by Angelo DePalma's trolling" when Mr DePalma compared me to the terrorists
who have recently bombed Madrid.

I also knew that you hadn't said what was in the parentheses

That's what I had expected any well-educated reader to know.

(although I thought it was what you intended).

I also honestly thought that was what Royce Campbell had intended to mean.

Nick, it is clear that you have misrepresented sandi's post (in the
original thread, he clarified that he was not saying he agreed with you).

I interpreted what Royce Campbell originally wrote, "Nor I", *exactly* as
'kg' did. I did *not intentionally misrepresent* Royce Campbell's position.
When Royce Campbell wrote such a terse ambiguous sentence, then he should
*not* have jumped to his unwarranted negative assumptions about my motives
because I reached a quite *plausible alternative interpretation* of it.

Your intent is unclear, and to me personally, can easily be explained by the
blindness I experienced w.r.t. the alternative meaning of "Nor I."
However, now that you know what was intended,

The 'bottom line' here for me is that Royce Campbell did *not write clearly
enough* in his response(s) for me to understand what he really meant.

and that your comment strongly changed the intent, why do you find it
difficult to apologize?

I have apologised for miscopying 'Neither she or I' as 'Neither she nor I'.

I did take offence when Royce Campbell apparently made an adverse comparison
about my alleged 'intellectual dishonesty' with Stan Booz's (who recently
has publicly referred to me as 'my ****** Nick'.)

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D50713ED7

In the RGCP thread, "Bill posted this on chess.misc" (3 April 2004),
Greenmantle wrote to Stan Booz:
"This is a reprehensible slander, Mr. Booz.
Nick did not write the above and everyone, including you, know it.
An apology is in order."
--Greenmantle (3 April 2004)

I have noted that at least some of the American writers (which is *not* to
say that I would include Royce Campbell among them) evidently believe that
Stan Booz should *not* apologise to me for calling me a '******' or for
his 'reprehensible slander' (as pointed out by Greenmantle).

Would you still make the comment you did, in the way you did,
given that you now know his intent?

Of course not, "now (that I) know his intent".
But Royce Campbell's insufficiently clear response(s) were *not*
helpful enough to me in originally determining his intent.

I am sorry that I have *unintentionally misrepresented* his intent.

You complain about being chastized for a simple typo in copying the quote.

Actually, what I wrote was more to point out a fact than to complain
about Royce Campbell.

I do think the conclusion, it _might_ have been intentional,

As far as I could tell, Royce Campbell had jumped to the conclusion that
'it_must_have been intentional' misconduct on my part, which was untrue.

is not unreasonable to make, especially when one doesn't recognize that
another meaning might be missed by a reader/responder (as I did).

I would *not* have objected to a 'it_might_have been intentional' conclusion.
For the record, it was *not* a 'cut-and-paste', but I would *not* blame
Royce Campbell if he had assumed that was possible, but *not* certain.

(snipped; I do *not* dispute what 'kg' wrote about it.)

However, you should take more care NOT to insert your parenthetical comments
between the quotes of sources you cite. That can very easily be misread and
looks intentional....

That's a fair point that I shall consider.

--Nick

hi

This post completes my response to kg's post.

(kg) wrote in message . com...
(snipped; I already have responded to it.)
So, my _personal_ current belief is that Nick shortsightedly
misinterpreted sandi's comment

That seems to refer to Royce Campbell's *complete* original post of "Nor I."
in response to my post in the thread, "Lapshun's Complaint".

I note that 'kg' has evidently written that he originally made the same
allegedly 'short-sighted misinterpretation' of Royce Campbell's post.

In my view, Royce Campbell was 'short-sighted' when he wrote such a terse
ambiguous statement, "Nor I.", *without making it clear enough* that *his
only intended meaning* was to make a comment about a point of English usage.

*If* Royce Campbell had been thoughtful enough to write, for instance,
"I am writing *only* to make a comment about English usage in Nick's post.
'Neither she or I' should be written as 'Neither she nor I' in formal usage.",
then this misunderstanding and subsequent dispute would *not* have arisen.
And I would have accepted his correction without any complaint.

When Royce Campbell writes a terse ambiguous post such as "Nor I." *without
taking into consideration the probability* that the reader could easily
reach a quite *plausible alternative interpretation* (as 'kg' and I did)
about his intent, I believe that it's unfair to condemn me--and me alone--
for having reached that quite *plausible alternative interpretation* of
Royce Campbell's apparently carelessly ambiguous post.

And it's even worse to jump to any definite conclusions that make about the
worst possible far-reaching conclusions of my motives, without giving me
a fair opportunity to explain them first.

If someone writes an ambiguous chess move, such as 'pxp', then should anyone
else be blamed for (mis)interpreting it by capturing the unintended pawn?

When a writer has written insufficiently clearly, as I believe that Royce
Campbell did when he tersely wrote "Nor I", why should the reader alone be
condemned for having reached a *plausible alternative interpretation* of it?

and later used it to justify another argument, not recognizing that
he was (grossly) mischaraterizing sandi's intent.

Royce Campbell wrote an ambiguous statement, "Nor I", and I reached
a plausible alternative interpretation of its meaning.

In attempting to clean up an earlier mistake (or-nor), he added fuel to the
suspicion it was intentional because the change eliminated the _other_
(intended) interpretation of the phrase in question ("innocently", not
recognizing that interpretation).

It *is* true that I innocently did *not* recognise Royce Campbell's
alternative interpretation, which he intended but *not* make clear enough.

Sandi, not hampered by the lack of understanding,

Royce Campbell knew exactly what was in his mind; I have to infer what's
in his mind only by reading his words exactly as they appear before me.
I cannot read Royce Campbell's mind, and he cannot read mine.

got peeved because he made conclusions that a reasonable person might make,

As far I can tell, Royce Campbell seems to have been unaware that I (or 'kg')
could have reached a *plausible alternative interpretation* of his "Nor I."
I have to say that I cannot regard that apparent negligence as compelling
evidence of reasonable behaviour.

and cited valid evidence (Nick corrected an error without comment,
misconstrued intent,

I *understandably* 'miscontrued intent' by reaching a *plausible
alternative interpretation* of Royce Campbell's ambiguous statement.

and added text that made it look like sandi explicitly stated support for
him).

I added a *parenthetical comment*, which I *sincerely believed* was Royce
Campbell's intended predicate ('kg' also seems to have thought so).
'Kg' has written that he knew that the *parenthetical text* was *not*
the explicit words of Royce Campbell.

To him, Nick's actions look(ed) deceptive, requiring an apology/explanation
to restore him to good graces.

I can accept that Royce Campbell sincerely believed that my conduct
*appeared* 'deceptive' to him, but he was wrong to draw that conclusion.

In my view, Royce Campbell overreacted by making some unwarranted negative
assumptions in vehement terms about my motives, without giving me a fair
opportunity to explain them first. He demanded an apology (even mentioning
Stan Booz in apparent approval, without any mention of Mr Booz's extremely
offensive misbehaviour toward me) without waiting for my explanation.

I'm willing to concede no-ill-intentions on either's part but
do think a more straightforward apology from Nick is in order.

Here's my current position:

1) Royce Campbell writes a terse ambiguous post, "Nor I.", to me.

2) I (like 'kg' did) reach a quite plausible interpretation of it,
which happened to be *not* the intent that Royce Campbell had in mind.

3) I proceed to write in the *sincere belief* that I have understood
Royce Campbell's meaning and that I am representing his view accurately.

4) Royce Campbell (who apparently could not imagine how any other honest
interpretation of his post, "Nor I.", could be possible) takes great
offence at my *unintentional misrepresentation* of his self-evident intent.

5) Royce Campbell jumps to some definite unwarranted negative conclusions
about my motives, accusing me of alleged 'intellectual dishonesty'.

I believe some apology should be in order from Royce Campbell, but,
as he seems to be generally decent, I am willing to drop that matter
in the interests of peace.

I am sorry that I have *unintentionally misrepresented* the intent of
Royce Campbell's post, "Nor I", which I regard as insufficiently clearly
written by him.

--Nick

Some of the latest response(s) by Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') have
just appeared on my newsreader. I lack the time now to reply to it,
but in view of that content (which I have read quickly), I feel that
I have to revise part of what I have last posted in response to what
'kg' wrote here.

Much of this post comes from my last post in this subthread.
(It is not a 'cut-and-paste'; I am retyping some of that text.)

(kg) wrote in message . com...
(snipped)
To him, Nick's actions look(ed) deceptive, requiring an apology/explanation
to restore him to good graces.

I can accept that Royce Campbell sincerely believed that my conduct
*appeared* 'deceptive' to him, but he was wrong to draw that conclusion.

In my view, Royce Campbell overreacted by making some unwarranted negative
assumptions in vehement terms about my motives, without giving me a fair
opportunity to explain them first, which he should have done before
demanding an apology.

I'm willing to concede no-ill-intentions on either's part but

I *had* believed that Royce Campbell did *not* have any 'ill intentions',
but now I have become less certain that it's the case. But I shall not
judge him conclusively until I have had more time to read his responses.

but do think a more straightforward apology from Nick is in order.

('Kg' wrote his last sentence *before* reading Royce Campbell's latest posts.)

Earlier, I wrote:

"Here's my current position:

1) Royce Campbell writes a terse ambiguous post, "Nor I." to me.
2) I (like 'kg' did) reach a quite plausible interpretation of it,
which happened to be *not* the intent that Royce Campbell had in mind.
3) I proceed to write in the *sincere belief* that I have understood
Royce Campbell's meaning and that I am representing his views accurately.
4) Royce Campbell (who apparently could not imagine how any other honest
interpretation of his post, "Nor I.", could be possible) takes great
offence at my *unintentional misrepresentation* of his self-evident intent.
5) Royce Campbell jumps to some definite unwarranted negative conclusions
about my motives, accusing me of alleged 'intellectual dishonesty'."

Earlier I wrote:

"I believe some apology should be in order from Royce Campbell, but,
as he seems to be generally decent, I am willing to drop that matter
in the interests of peace."

That statement (above) can no longer be my position.

As far as I can tell, Royce Campbell seems unwilling to admit that his
*original ambiguous post*, "Nor I.", could have been--as indeed it was--
primarily responsible for the misunderstandings and subsequent dispute
between us. Instead, Royce Campbell evidently insists on condemning me.
Royce Campbell has behaved quite offensively toward me by continuing to jump
to his unwarranted conclusions about my alleged 'intellectual dishonesty',
not to mention his other baseless offensive rhetoric.

Hence, I submit that Royce Campbell has behaved more offensively toward me
than I have toward him in *unintentionally misrepresenting* the intent of
*his ambiguous post*, "Nor I", for which *I already have apologised*.

Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') does owe me an apology.

--Nick

Thanks to Louis Blair for his careful, thorough efforts to ascertain
objectively the facts at the bottom of my dispute with Royce Campbell
('sandirhodes').

I believe that this dispute has arisen out of my innocent misunderstanding
of a tersely ambiguous post, "Nor I.", by Royce Campbell, to which he has
overreacted by declaiming much unwarranted personally accusatory rhetoric
against me.

1) Royce Campbell presumably always knows exactly what's in his mind.
2) Royce Campbell sometimes has not written clearly enough to communicate
what he's thinking to me.
3) Royce Campbell cannot know exactly what I could understand or could
misunderstand of his thoughts.
4) Hence, Royce Campbell should refrain from directing his unwarranted
personally accusatory rhetoric against me.

Here's a summary of what has happened between Royce Campbell and me:

1) Royce Campbell wrote a tersely ambiguous post, "Nor I."
2) I reached a *plausible alternative interpretation* of it that
happened *not* to be the one that Royce Campbell had in mind.
3) I expressed what I *sincerely believed* was Royce Campbell's view.
But it was an *unintentional misrepresentation* of his view.
4) Royce Campbell took great offence, and, without giving me the opportunity
to explain first, he accused me of 'intellectual dishonesty' and demanded
a retraction and an apology. But he did *not* explain the basis of his
vehement complaint clearly enough for me to understand it.
5) I did *not* understand exactly why Royce Campbell was complaining or why
he was so upset. In my response, I could only express my speculation
on what he *might* be complaining about. I did *not* understand for what
exactly I was expected to apologise or to retract. Nonetheless, I offered
my apology on a point that I guessed *might* have offended Royce Campbell,
though I still could *not* understand why he was so upset.
6) Royce Campbell *misinterpreted* my response as further 'evidence' of my
alleged 'intellectual dishonesty', and he has written a post full of
personally accusatory nonsense against me, to which Louis Blair has
already responded.

I write this post to corroborate what Louis Blair has written
and to add some of my own points of explanation and criticism.

Louis Blair wrote in
message usenet.com...
sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):
I make no assumptions.

It seems to me that sandirhodes did make assumptions.

Indeed, sandirhodes has made unwarranted extremely negative assumptions,
which he has expressed in offensive terms, about my motives and character.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):
Let's see what happened:

"Angelo DePalma" wrote (to Nick):
"Now go blow up a train station and leave me alone."

"Nick" wrote:
"I have a friend (in real life) from Spain.
Neither she or I are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling...."

I wrote:
"Nor I."

Then "Nick" wrote:
"Neither she nor I are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling...."

and attributed my response of "Nor I," to that corrected sentence,
as follows:

'... Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') wrote in response to
my last statement (above) about Angelo DePalma's trolling:
"Nor I (am 'amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling')."
--Royce Campbell (2 April 2004)'

I complained as follows:
"... Your quote above from April 1 2004 is not accurate.
In fact, the last line of that quote was "Neither she *or* I
(emphasis mine)are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling."
You have changed this quote in your reply to Angelo, thus
changing the effect of my post. You have also added a
clarification to my post, which is not accurate
(whether or not true).

You made a grammatical error. You corrected that error without comment.
You attempted to conceal the error with a falsehood. ..."

And there it is: an assumption about what Nick attempted to do -
an assumption that strikes me as unlikely.

Sandirhodes's assumption about me is utterly wrong.

My best guess about what happened is:

Yes, that *is* what happened.

(1) Nick wrote, "Neither she or I are amused at all
by Angelo DePalma's trolling".

(2) Sandirhodes wrote, "Nor I," intending it as a correction of "or I".

For the record, in *both* his original post *and* his initial complaint
post in this thread, sandirhodes *never* stipulated that was his *only*
original intent. So I did *not* understand his original intent, and I
did *not* understand the basis of his initial complaint, which he did
*not* express clearly enough to me.

(3) Nick took the comment as an expression of agreement with him
that Angelo DePalma's comments were not amusing and therefore
paid no attention to the grammatical matter.

Yes, that's *exactly* what I did.

Another part of the sandirhodes (2004-04-07 00:52:28 PST) complaint
that he now (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) quotes:
"... We may now, it seems, cite this example ad infinitum concerning
you, your integrity, and, as Mr. Booz might suggest, your intellectual
dishonesty. ..."

It does not seem to me that such citing would be sensible.

It could be considered 'sensible' only for a troll to do.

The most plausible explanation seems to me to be that
the incident was simply a misunderstanding.

Yes, it would be wrong to keep citing one example 'ad infinitum'
of an innocent misunderstanding as an alleged 'proof' of
characteristic 'intellectual dishonesty'.

After quoting Nick at length,
sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):
This essay is irrelevant, and inconsistent in
addressing the crux of my complaint.

My guess is that this is simply because Nick did not understand
what happened and therefore did not understand what sandirhodes
was complaining about.

Yes, I have to say again that sandirhodes did *not* write clearly enough to
explain the basis of his initial complaint. I did *not* understand it, and
I could only express my speculation on what he *might* be complaining about.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
You have conveniently neglected the point of my complaint,
which is that this 'mistyping' changed the intent of my post.

Again, I did *not* understand 'the point of (his) complaint'
because sandirhodes had *not* explained it clearly enough.

The use of the word, "conveniently", here suggests that sandirhodes is
again making an assumption - in this case that the neglect was for the
sake of convenience. It strikes me as more likely that Nick simply did
not understand why sandirhodes had made the claim about changed intent.
The 2004-04-07 00:52:28 PST complaint of sandirhodes did not explain
why the or-nor switch changed the apparent intent of the comment by
sandirhodes.

Yes, I did *not* understand why sandirhodes had made his claim about
'changed the intent' because he did *not* explain to me what his intent
was (sandirhodes evidently *assumed* that I *already must* have known it),
and he *did* not explain to me how 'the or-nor switch' had changed
his comment's intent.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
you included the clarification within quotes, thus assigning the
parenthetical meaning to the entire quote. Since you 'then
understood' it as such, do you understand it differently now?

Presumably, sandirhodes asks this question because he recongnizes the
possibility that his 2004-04-07 00:52:28 PST complaint did not successfully
convey to Nick what had gone wrong.

Yes, sandirhodes's initial complaint (time noted above) was *not* written
clearly enough to communicate to me what he was complaining about.

I can recall thinking:
"What a surprise! Royce seems extremely upset with me. But why?
I *can only guess* that he has misunderstood something or that I have,
but I really cannot think of anything that should make him that upset.
And he has *not* explained clearly to me why he's so upset."

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
I have been anything BUT judgmental with you.

In view of the many examples to the contrary (of sandirhodes at least
seeming 'judgmental') that I have observed and that Louis Blair has noted
here, I have to say that sandirhodes' statement seems ludicrous.

And I also have to say that I have some difficulty in necessarily assigning
innocent motives to sandirhodes for having made that statement (above).
Unlike how sandirhodes has behaved toward me in this thread, however,
I shall give him a fair opportunity to explain his motives for it.

It seems to me that there has been at least the appearance of a judgmental
attitude in the references to "integrity" and "intellectual dishonesty".
There was also that use of the word, "conveniently", that I mentioned above.

Thanks to Louis Blair for taking note of all that evidence.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
you found it necessary to waste your time, my time, and the time
of anyone else reading this thread with irrelevant arguments and
pointed rejoinders designed to extricate you from the web of deceit
you have (apparently) perpetrated here.

Sandirhodes apparently 'found it necessary' to jump to his unwarranted
extremely negative conclusions about my motives and character, without
giving me a fair opportunity to explain first.

Judgmental (apparently) again. No "web of deceit" is apparent to me here.
Just a misunderstanding.

Yes, this dispute has arisen out of sandirhodes's overreaction
to my innocent misunderstanding of his ambiguous post, "Nor I."
I could only speculate about the then-obscure-to-me basis of
sandirhodes's initial complaint.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):
A man of integrity would admit his failing without excuse.

I do *not* understand why I should have to "admit my (alleged) failing
without excuse" when I sincerely did *not* undersand what had gone wrong
because sandirhodes had failed to explain it clearly enough to me.

A: I know you are guilty of this crime! You must admit it without excuse!
B: Could you explain to me what's the crime?
A: If you were 'a man of integrity', then you would admit it already.

Judgmental (apparently) again by inappropriately raising the
issue of "integrity".

Yes, Royce Campbell's conduct toward me has been inappropriate.
(I have no doubt, however, that 'my' usual trolls here approve of it.)

I have to say that what sandirhodes has written sounds to me like an
attempt at 'character assassination' (over my innocent misunderstanding).

A person without integrity might, I suppose, attempt a "web of deceit",
but it is difficult to imagine what such a person could plausibly hope
to gain when a person like sindirhodes is involved and all the quotes
are available on google.

Having previously been on cordial terms with Royce Campbell,
I had nothing whatsoever to gain by antagonizing him.

On the other hand, what Nick posted looks to me like the sort of thing
that would have been written by someone who simply did not understand
what sandirhodes was complaining about.

Yes, sandirhodes had *not* explained his complaint clearly enough to me.

After quoting another Nick paragraph,
sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
Rhetoric, and irrelevent. Don't insult my intelligence.

Judgmental (apparently) again. Sandirhodes seems to have jumped to the
conclusion that Nick was trying to fool sandirhodes in some way. Again,
it appears to me that Nick simply did not understand what had gone wrong.

Yes, sandirhodes had *not* explained his complaint clearly enough to me.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
You are getting warm, but you are not there yet.

At times, it seems that sandirhodes himself is well aware that Nick
did not understand what had gone wrong. But, in that case, how can
it be sensible to talk of a supposedly apparent "web of deceit"?

I have to say that would make no sense unless sandirhodes was trolling me.

If "sandirhodes himself is well aware that (I) did not understand what
had gone wrong", then it would be wrong and dishonest for him to accuse me,
as he did, of being responsible for an apparent "web of deceit", which
would imply that I must have "under(stood) what had gone wrong".

Again, I have some difficulty in necessarily assigning innocent motives
to sandirhodes. But I shall give him a fair opportunity to explain them.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
you represented [my position] as you saw fit for your own purposes.

Sandirhodes is judgmental and wrong again.

Is there any reason to suppose that Nick represented the position
of sandirhodes as anything other what he perceived it to be?

Again, I did *not intentionally misrepresent* the position of sandirhodes.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
Since I can no longer presume that you will be intellectually honest
when quoting me, ...

Judgmental (apparently) again.

Sandirhodes is judgmental and wrong again.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
The bottom line seems to be that you might take whatever liberty
you feel is necessary to back your position, however intellectually
dishonest it may be.

Judgmental (apparently) again.

Sandirhodes is judgmental and wrong again.

This incident looks like an honest mistake, not intellectual dishonesty.

This dispute has arisen out of my honest misunderstanding of sandirhodes's
tersely ambiguous post, which was followed by his excessively vehement and
unclearly written initial complaint. For some reason, sandirhodes seems
determined to convict me in his own mind of 'intellectual dishonesty' without
even waiting to listen to what I (or anyone else) has to say in evidence.

Again, I have to say that I have difficulty in necessarily assigning innocent
motives to sandirhodes for hastening to condemn my moral character (e.g.
his references to 'man of integrity', 'intellectual dishonesty', 'web of
deceit') without even waiting to consider the points of evidence that
Louis Blair or I have made here.

I have to say that sandirhodes's behaviour toward me in this thread has
seemed much too comparable (though *not* exactly alike) with the characteristic
misbehaviour of several of 'my' usual trolls, who routinely have rushed to
'convict' me--on the basis of their quite dishonestly distorted 'evidence'
or often on no 'evidence' whatsoever--of whatever 'crimes' happen to occur
to them in their latest invective against me personally.

I had not regarded sandirhodes as a troll, so I shall give him a fair
opportunity to explain his apparently trolling behaviour in this thread.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):
Adding comments within quoted text falls under editorializing,
or interpreting. Either of these choices should not be corralled
with the quote, or the author.

This sort of thing is done all the time.

I already had explained that point (about my handling of quoted text and
*parenthetical comments*) to sandirhodes. But sandirhodes seems ignorant
of a well-accepted common practice or determined to disbelieve what I write.

Here is an example that I have seen frequently:
"Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses
no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three
thousand chessplayers [who play on a par with a master]."
- Lasker

As it happens, I disapprove of the interpretation that has been attached
to Lasker's quote by those last eight words, but I would never dream of
saying that this is a matter of intellectual dishonesty.

Louis Blair's careful standards do him credit as a writer.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
For the record, I *do* understand how you
may have missed the intention of my post.

I 'missed the intention of (his) post' only because sandirhodes wrote a
tersely *ambiguous post*, "Nor I.", and I reached a *plausible alternative
interpretation* of it.

Given that sandirhodes has claimed that he 'understand(s) how (I) *may*
have missed the intention of (his) post', why has sandirhodes jumped to his
unwarranted extremely negative conclusions about my motives and character?
Why has sandirhodes used such personally accusatory terms such as 'man of
integrity', 'intellectual dishonesty', 'web of deceit', etc. about me?

As far as I can tell, sandirhodes has about presumed from the start that I
must have been guilty of some great crime against him and that I must have
known exactly what it was. Both presumptions are wrong and offensive.

And I understand how someone who missed the intention of the post of
sandirhodes could have chosen to present it as Nick did without any
dishonest intentions.

And that's what I did. ('Kg' also seems to concur that I acted 'without
any dishonest intentions'.) But, given his reiterated accusations of
'intellectual dishonesty' against me, sandirhodes seems unwilling to
recognise that truth or, at least, to admit that he was wrong in jumping
to his unwarranted negative conclusions about my motives and character.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
This isn't a personal issue (yet?), and you will notice I will not
need to resort to name-calling, etc., under any circumstances.

All the references to such things as intellectual dishonesty seem
to me to be morally equivalent to name-calling.

Yes, *if* Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') really had preferred to avoid
making this dispute into a 'personal issue', then he should have refrained
from making his many "references to such things as 'intellectual dishonesty'",
'web of deceit', 'a man of integrity', etc. in personal connection to me.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
Nick, this is a reference to *your* ad infinitum cites of certain posters
here. Are you suggesting that anyone *else* who would do this is, by your
definition, a troll?

As I understand it, Nick was indicating that it would be troll behavior
to present this incident as a reflection of Nick's "integrity" or as a
demonstration of "intellectual dishonesty".

Yes, it would be trolling to cite 'ad infinitum' one case of an honest
misunderstanding as any 'proof' of characteristic 'intellectual dishonesty'.

I think it is safe to suppose that Nick would claim that he does not,
himself, fail to properly distinguish between mistakes and dishonesty.

I attempt to observe that proper distinction as well as I can.

Starting with a quote of Nick,
sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
Nick wrote:
As far as I can tell, the substitution of 'nor' for 'or' makes the
sentence sound more proper in formal English usage, but it does *not*
make a great difference in its real meaning, which Royce Campbell
insists that it does.

Nope. I insist no such thing.

Please note that I wrote, "As far as I can tell", because (as I already have
explained), I did *not* understand the basis of sandirhodes's complaint, so
I could only speculate on what he *might* be complaining about.

Do you get some sort of thrill from assigning attitudes to a
person's full name?

No.

Royce Campbell thinks it is presumptuous and rude.

I ('****** Nick' according to Stan Booz) thought that I was being respectful
enough in using Royce Campbell's (correctly spelled) full name.

I think that Royce Campbell's many unwarranted personally accusatory
references to 'intellectual dishonesty', 'web of deceit', 'man of integrity'
about me in this thread have been far more 'presumptuous and rude'.

Royce Campbell might consider that it is just the natural result
of Nick trying to understand what sandirhodes is complaining about.

Yes, I had to speculate on what sandirhodes *might* be complaining
about because he had failed to explain it clearly enough to me.

sandirhodes writes (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST) (to Nick):
I sincerely believe that you sincerely believed what you wrote.
However, this *strictly parenthetical comment* determined to explain
the meaning of my words. Your semantics do not change the fact that
you were assigning meaning to my words that suited your purposes.
THAT is what is intellectually dishonest,

Sandirhodes has reached an illogical conclusion.

One cannot 'sincerely believe' that something is true and then be considered
'intellectually dishonest' by acting only to express that sincere belief.

If Nick sincerely believed that he was explaining the meaning of the
words correctly, I do not see how it can be appropriate to use words like
"intellectually dishonest".

I did *sincerely believe* that, and it's inappropriate again for sandirhodes
to condemn my innocent behaviour as 'intellectually dishonest'.

A mistake is not dishonesty.

My plausible alternative interpretation of sandirhodes's ambiguous post,
"Nor I", should *not* be condemned alone as a mistake on my part.

sandirhodes wrote (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):
THAT is ... why I demanded a retraction (which did not occur)
and apology (which was misplaced).

It strikes me as unfair to expect a properly placed apology from
someone who did not understand the nature of what went wrong.

Again, I did *not* understand the basis of sandirhodes's initial complaint
because he had failed to explain clearly enough what he was complaining about.

I believe that Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') has persistently treated me
with unfairness in this thread.

Starting with a quote of Nick,
sandirhodes wrote (2004-04-08 01:30:49 PST):
Nick wrote:
Unfortunately, Royce Campbell seems to have jumped to the worst
possible conclusions about my motives and made some unwarranted
assumptions about me.

I have only reported what happened

In language that was insufficiently clear to explain the complaint to me.

and requested reparation.

And I request reparation from Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes').

I do not pretend to define the meaning of Nick's words.

Sandirhodes has been miscontruing what I wrote throughout this thread.

Why does he find it necessary to define mine?

The reference by sandirhodes (on 2004-04-07 00:52:28 PST) to such ideas
as "integrity" and "intellectual dishonesty" may have had something
to do with it.

I already have apologised for *unintentionally misrepresenting* the
*ambiguous post*, "Nor I", of Royce Campbell, notwithstanding my view
that the primary responsibility for my honest misunderstanding--actually,
a plausible alternative interpretation of it--was Royce Campbell's
unclear writing, which he has *not* yet admitted could be at fault.

I believe that Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') has behaved inappropriately
and offensively toward me by jumping to unwarranted extremely negative
conclusions about my motives and character, which he has expressed in
such personally accusatory terms such as 'man of integrity', 'intellectual
dishonesty', 'web of deceit', etc. Louis Blair has stated that he regards
Royce Campbell's rhetoric as apparently 'morally equivalent to name-calling'.

Hence, I expect Royce Campbell to retract fully all of his personal
accusations against me and to apologise for them. I also expect Royce
Campbell to acknowledge that his ambiguous post, "Nor I", was the real
origin of this unnecessary dispute between us.

Is Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') 'a man of integrity' (to borrow his term)?

--Nick