"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...."

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

I think your basic problem is you don't speak English very well. You don't
understand the meaning of a simple word like "troll." What is your native
language, Massa Nick? Swahili? Tutsi?

I'll bet you were nagged by your mother and ridiculed by your father when
you were growing up. "Bla, Niko, yoo looke like a walkeeeng terrd een dat
haaat." "Waaaat, ohnlee a nine-tee forrr aahn yore test yooo EEEMbacile."
You can't let things go. You remind me of someone else on this newsgroup,
except you may be stupider.

"Nick" wrote

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).

I'm so sorry I hurt your feelings Massa Nick. Before I step in front of the
speeding train, before I swallow hot coals, I'll get a lava enema and have
myself disemboweled to show how sorry I am.

I have a friend (in real life) from Spain.

You don't have any friends (in real life). Maybe you have some (in fake
life). You know, the life you live when you're fantasizing about playing
USCF experts (in England) and possessing the equivalent of a USCF 2200
rating (even though you're unrated).

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

Your chances of knowing a "she" are about the same as your chances of being
2200 strength. That is, zero.

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)

Another genius. What is "sandi" by the way? Is it a name given to ... girls
by any chance?

--Nick

Rhymes with...

"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...."

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, for which an apology is absolutely necessary. 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. You
attributed this falsehood to my name.

Our previous encounters have been civil, intellectual, and virtually free of the common trolling practiced by many here. You have
made many posts on many different subjects concerning the actions of people on these newsgroups. We may now, it seems, cite this
example ad infinitum concerning you, your integrity, and, as Mr. Booz might suggest, your intellectual dishonesty.

I demand a retraction.

"Angelo DePalma" wrote (in reference to me):
Another genius. What is "sandi" by the way? Is it a name given to ... girls
by any chance?
Rhymes with...

Angelo, FWIW, please read my response to Nick.

FYI, 'Sandi' is Dustin's cousin, and Dusty's nephew. It's a link to my past.

Sorry about that. Out of habit I've come to trust even the creepiest of the
creepy on here when they quote another post. Misquoting and passing it off
as fact is low. And this guy has shown himself to be the lowest of the low.

"sandirhodes" wrote in message
news:YqOcc.949$_i4.795@okepread01...

"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...."

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, for which
an apology is absolutely necessary. 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. You
attributed this falsehood to my name.

Our previous encounters have been civil, intellectual, and virtually free
of the common trolling practiced by many here. You have
made many posts on many different subjects concerning the actions of
people on these newsgroups. We may now, it seems, cite this
example ad infinitum concerning you, your integrity, and, as Mr. Booz
might suggest, your intellectual dishonesty.

I demand a retraction.

"Angelo DePalma" wrote
Sorry about that. Out of habit I've come to trust even the creepiest of the
creepy on here when they quote another post. Misquoting and passing it off
as fact is low. And this guy has shown himself to be the lowest of the low.

I was not upset by your comments, Angelo.

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.

For example, in the thread, "Legal threats from Polgar and Truong"
(January 2004), I committed a similar but even "gross(er) error" (to adapt
your phrase) by my *miscopying* of my original sentence, "You have the
*right* to decide...", which came out in my post *mistyped* as, "You have
the *write* to decide..." And then I was trolled for a while on account
of that error in typing when copying a sentence.

So which of these alternatives would you believe is more probable?

1) I *intentionally misquoted* (as you have implied about my error in typing
when copying a sentence here) my original sentence "You have the *right*
to decide..." as "You have the *write* to decide..." in order to make
myself appear ignorant enough to be 'credited' with that example of
near illiteracy in English.
2) I *unintentionally miscopied* part of my original sentence.

Clearly, the latter alternative is far more probable, and that's what
happened, as it did in the sentence to which you have objected.

for which an apology is absolutely necessary.

You have read my explanation (above). I am sorry that it happened.

Your quote above from April 1 2004 is not accurate.

Let's be more specific here. My quotation of Angelo DePalma (1 April 2004)
was completely accurate. My quotation of my response (1 April 2004) was
accurate except for the mistyping when copying of 'or' as 'nor'.

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,

As I already have explained, it was a simple mistyping when copying.

thus changing the effect of my post.

Royce, I have to say that your claimed point about English usage seems
questionable to me. As far as I can tell, you are claiming that there *must*
be a significant distinction in meaning between writing "Neither she *or* I"
and writing "Neither she *nor* I". That alleged significant distinction in
*ordinary English usage* seems unclear to me.

As far as I know (after having checked a reference on English usage),
when 'neither' is used as a conjunction (as it was in my sentence),
'nor' is *properly preferred in formal English usage* to follow it.
Apparently, however, 'or' often follows 'neither' in *informal English usage*
while having the *same intended meaning*. I can recall hearing or reading
examples (including by university students) of "neither A or B" used
in place of "neither A nor B" while expressing the *same meaning*.

So, Royce, I have to say that it seems unclear to me exactly why you believe
that there's such a great difference in meaning between "neither A or B" and
"neither A nor B". I concur that "neither A nor B" is more proper in formal
English usage, but it seems excessive for you to condemn me for having lapsed
into some informal English usage by writing "neither A or B". (Even I don't
normally think and speak only in the terms of formal English usage!)
But most of your post's rhetoric seems excessively judgmental to me.

Royce, if you are interested in pursuing this point of English usage any
further, then I would submit that it should be arbitrated by a professor
of English, such as William Hyde. Perhaps I shall learn something new
about English usage, as I recently did about the comparative idioms of
'a storm in a teacup' and 'a tempest in a teapot'. :-)

You have also added a clarification to my post,

For the record, Royce Campbell originally wrote: "Nor I."

Yes, that 'clarification' (of what I then understood was Royce Campbell's
predicate) was added *only within parentheses*, which I believe to be a
standard practice when referring to quoted text. I expected that any
well-educated reader should be able to recognise that *all the words
within the parentheses* ('parenthetical material') were *not* being
attributed to Royce Campbell.

which is not accurate (whether or not true).

Royce, I don't understand the exact basis of your objection about 'accuracy'.

1) Do you object to my *parenthetical 'clarification'* on the grounds that
an ignorant reader could assume that *the words within the parentheses*
were yours? That assumption would be inaccurate. I regret it if any
reader were ignorant enough to assume that, but, as long as I follow
what I believe to be some standard practices in handling quotations and
parenthetical comments, I would dispute that I should be held entirely
responsible for every ignorant reader's potential misinterpretations.

2) Do you object that what I quoted from you *when added to my parenthetical
'clarification'* was a "not accurate" representation of your position?
If that's the case, then I submit that "whether or not true" is relevant.
My sincere understanding of your position was that you were *not* "amused
at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling." Was that *your true position*?
Royce, if you care to inform me *now* that your true position was different,
say, that you were amused by Angelo DePalma's trolling, then I shall take
your word for it and accept that I have misunderstood your true position.

You made a grammatical error.

Peccavi--Have I sinned alone amongst the multitudes who use informal English?

In formal English usage, when 'neither' is used as a conjunction, it should
be properly followed by 'nor', not 'or' (as I originally wrote 'by ear').

You corrected that error without comment.

I already have explained this matter (above).

Royce, I have to say that you apparently have made a quite unusual objection.

I have no doubt that, when my many posts here are taken as a whole, there
have been more than a few spelling, punctuation, grammatical, or usage errors.
*If every time* that I noticed one of those errors, I were to make a specific
comment to the effect of "Here I am correcting my error about X" (as you seem
to be suggesting that I should do), then I have no doubt that I would be
relentlessly denounced as being much too excessively pedantic. Other readers
here have advised me, in effect, "Don't worry too much about the occasional
errors in your writing. Everyone makes some errors. We can understand that
you're only human too."

You attempted to conceal the error with a falsehood.

Royce, that accusation is untrue, and you have no right to make it.
What 'falsehood'? Given what you had written, I *sincerely believed*
that you were *not* "amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling", which
is what I appended as a *parenthetical comment* to your quotation, "Nor I."

Royce, if you care to inform me *now* that you were amused by Angelo DePalma's
trolling, then I shall accept that was your true position. And I shall also
advise you to be *much clearer in expressing it* than just writing the terse
and (now apparently) rather cryptic, "Nor I."

You attributed this falsehood to my name.

No, Royce, I added a 'clarification' (your term) of what I sincerely believed
was your intended predicate (after "Nor I.") as a *parenthetical comment* to
your quotation. That is *not* the same as attributing that *parenthetical
comment* to the author of the quotation--you. I did expect any well-educated
reader *not* to conclude that you had written the *parenthetical comment*.

The 'bottom line' here seems to be a misunderstanding between you and me
about what's an acceptable practice in adding comments to quoted text.

Our previous encounters have been civil, intellectual, and virtually
free of the common trolling practiced by many here.

Royce, I also have much appreciated it that we have been able to engage in
some meaningful discussions (even about an issue as extremely controvesial
as racism) without personal recriminations. You have seemed to be among the
more thoughtful writers in the USCF. My only complaints were about a few
occasions when you evidently misunderstood what I thought that I had meant
clearly enough.

You have made many posts on many different subjects concerning the actions
of people on these newsgroups.

I have made "many posts on many different subjects". I have been trolled in
many ways (you yourself have just noted "the common trolling practiced by
many here"), and sometimes (I lack the time and the inclination to do more)
I have responded by citing sufficient evidence to point out that trolling
for what it really is.

We may now, it seems, cite this example ad infinitum

Royce, you may do that *if* you intend to join the evidently tireless trolls.
(If you were once to commit a 'fingerfehler', then would you care to have that
example cited 'ad infinitum' as 'proof' of your inability to play chess?)

By the way, I already have observed that there's no shortage of trolls
who feed each other by writing mutually supporting posts (A: "It must be
true because B says so!" B: "It must be true because A says so!"), even
though often there seems to be no evidence at the bottom to support them.

concerning you, your integrity,

Here's a summary of my position:

I *miscopied while typing* (which I have done previously) my sentence
"Neither she or I..." as "Neither she nor I...". I have apologised for it.

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.
I would suggest that this issue of English usage be submitted to one or more
professors of English. (Perhaps I shall learn something new about it.)

Given what Royce Campbell had written, I *sincerely believed* that he was
*not* "amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling". After Mr. Campbell's
quotation, 'Nor I', I added a 'clarification' (Mr. Campbell's term) of what
I thought was his intended predicate (about "...Angelo DePalma's trolling")
as a *strictly parenthetical comment*.

As far as I know, when a *parenthetical comment* is appended to a quotation,
that parenthetical comment is *not* being attributed to the author of that
quotation (in this case, Royce Campbell), and a well-educated reader should
be expected to know that. Accordingly, I have followed a standard practice,
as I had understood it, for handling quotations and parenthetical comments.
If a more experienced scholar would care to inform me that I have been
mistaken in my treatment of quotations and parenthetical comments, then
I shall consider his or her advice carefully.

Unfortunately, Royce Campbell seems to have jumped to the worst possible
conclusions about my motives and made some unwarranted assumptions about me.
In part, that seems to be on account of his misunderstanding (or perhaps mine)
with regard to the treatment of quotations and parenthetical comments.

and, as Mr. Booz might suggest, your intellectual dishonesty.

*If* Royce Campbell's quoting Stan Booz with approval, then he should read the
evidence about Stan Booz's dishonesty in this post (and other related posts in
that thread), which has a link to more evidence about Stan Booz's lies.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D50713ED7

"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 2003, "Bill posted this on chess.misc")

I demand a retraction.

Royce, I already have explained my position (above).
I have no objection to expressing the record clearly.

Here's the relevant last part of the exchange between Royce Campbell and me:

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

On 2 April 2004, Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') wrote to Nick:
"Nor I."

--Nick

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.

For example, in the thread, "Legal threats from Polgar and Truong"
(January 2004), I committed a similar but even "gross(er) error" (to adapt
your phrase) by my *miscopying* of my original sentence, "You have the
*right* to decide...", which came out in my post *mistyped* as, "You have
the *write* to decide..." And then I was trolled for a while on account
of that error in typing when copying a sentence.

So which of these alternatives would you believe is more probable?

1) I *intentionally misquoted* (as you have implied about my error in typing
when copying a sentence here) my original sentence "You have the *right*
to decide..." as "You have the *write* to decide..." in order to make
myself appear ignorant enough to be 'credited' with that example of
near illiteracy in English.
2) I *unintentionally miscopied* part of my original sentence.

Clearly, the latter alternative is far more probable, and that's what
happened, as it did in the sentence to which you have objected.

for which an apology is absolutely necessary.

You have read my explanation (above). I am sorry that it happened.

Your quote above from April 1 2004 is not accurate.

Let's be more specific here. My quotation of Angelo DePalma (1 April 2004)
was completely accurate. My quotation of my response (1 April 2004) was
accurate except for the mistyping when copying of 'or' as 'nor'.

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,

As I already have explained, it was a simple mistyping when copying.

thus changing the effect of my post.

Royce, I have to say that your claimed point about English usage seems
questionable to me. As far as I can tell, you are claiming that there *must*
be a significant distinction in meaning between writing "Neither she *or* I"
and writing "Neither she *nor* I". That alleged significant distinction in
*ordinary English usage* seems unclear to me.

As far as I know (after having checked a reference on English usage),
when 'neither' is used as a conjunction (as it was in my sentence),
'nor' is *properly preferred in formal English usage* to follow it.
Apparently, however, 'or' often follows 'neither' in *informal English usage*
while having the *same intended meaning*. I can recall hearing or reading
examples (including by university students) of "neither A or B" used
in place of "neither A nor B" while expressing the *same meaning*.

So, Royce, I have to say that it seems unclear to me exactly why you believe
that there's such a great difference in meaning between "neither A or B" and
"neither A nor B". I concur that "neither A nor B" is more proper in formal
English usage, but it seems excessive for you to condemn me for having lapsed
into some informal English usage by writing "neither A or B". (Even I don't
normally think and speak only in the terms of formal English usage!)
But most of your post's rhetoric seems excessively judgmental to me.

Royce, if you are interested in pursuing this point of English usage any
further, then I would submit that it should be arbitrated by a professor
of English, such as William Hyde. Perhaps I shall learn something new
about English usage, as I recently did about the comparative idioms of
'a storm in a teacup' and 'a tempest in a teapot'. :-)

You have also added a clarification to my post,

For the record, Royce Campbell originally wrote: "Nor I."

Yes, that 'clarification' (of what I then understood was Royce Campbell's
predicate) was added *only within parentheses*, which I believe to be a
standard practice when referring to quoted text. I expected that any
well-educated reader should be able to recognise that *all the words
within the parentheses* ('parenthetical material') were *not* being
attributed to Royce Campbell.

which is not accurate (whether or not true).

Royce, I don't understand the exact basis of your objection about 'accuracy'.

1) Do you object to my *parenthetical 'clarification'* on the grounds that
an ignorant reader could assume that *the words within the parentheses*
were yours? That assumption would be inaccurate. I regret it if any
reader were ignorant enough to assume that, but, as long as I follow
what I believe to be some standard practices in handling quotations and
parenthetical comments, I would dispute that I should be held entirely
responsible for every ignorant reader's potential misinterpretations.

2) Do you object that what I quoted from you *when added to my parenthetical
'clarification'* was a "not accurate" representation of your position?
If that's the case, then I submit that "whether or not true" is relevant.
My sincere understanding of your position was that you were *not* "amused
at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling." Was that *your true position*?
Royce, if you care to inform me *now* that your true position was different,
say, that you were amused by Angelo DePalma's trolling, then I shall take
your word for it and accept that I have misunderstood your true position.

You made a grammatical error.

Peccavi--Have I sinned alone amongst the multitudes who use informal English?

In formal English usage, when 'neither' is used as a conjunction, it should
be properly followed by 'nor', not 'or' (as I originally wrote 'by ear').

You corrected that error without comment.

I already have explained this matter (above).

Royce, I have to say that you apparently have made a quite unusual objection.

I have no doubt that, when my many posts here are taken as a whole, there
have been more than a few spelling, punctuation, grammatical, or usage errors.
*If every time* that I noticed one of those errors, I were to make a specific
comment to the effect of "Here I am correcting my error about X" (as you seem
to be suggesting that I should do), then I have no doubt that I would be
relentlessly denounced as being much too excessively pedantic. Other readers
here have advised me, in effect, "Don't worry too much about the occasional
errors in your writing. Everyone makes some errors. We can understand that
you're only human too."

You attempted to conceal the error with a falsehood.

Royce, that accusation is untrue, and you have no right to make it.
What 'falsehood'? Given what you had written, I *sincerely believed*
that you were *not* "amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling", which
is what I appended as a *parenthetical comment* to your quotation, "Nor I."

Royce, if you care to inform me *now* that you were amused by Angelo DePalma's
trolling, then I shall accept that was your true position. And I shall also
advise you to be *much clearer in expressing it* than just writing the terse
and (now apparently) rather cryptic, "Nor I."

You attributed this falsehood to my name.

No, Royce, I added a 'clarification' (your term) of what I sincerely believed
was your intended predicate (after "Nor I.") as a *parenthetical comment* to
your quotation. That is *not* the same as attributing that *parenthetical
comment* to the author of the quotation--you. I did expect any well-educated
reader *not* to conclude that you had written the *parenthetical comment*.

The 'bottom line' here seems to be a misunderstanding between you and me
about what's an acceptable practice in adding comments to quoted text.

Our previous encounters have been civil, intellectual, and virtually
free of the common trolling practiced by many here.

Royce, I also have much appreciated it that we have been able to engage in
some meaningful discussions (even about an issue as extremely controvesial
as racism) without personal recriminations. You have seemed to be among the
more thoughtful writers in the USCF. My only complaints were about a few
occasions when you evidently misunderstood what I thought that I had meant
clearly enough.

You have made many posts on many different subjects concerning the actions
of people on these newsgroups.

I have made "many posts on many different subjects". I have been trolled in
many ways (you yourself have just noted "the common trolling practiced by
many here"), and sometimes (I lack the time and the inclination to do more)
I have responded by citing sufficient evidence to point out that trolling
for what it really is.

We may now, it seems, cite this example ad infinitum

Royce, you may do that *if* you intend to join the evidently tireless trolls.
(If you were once to commit a 'fingerfehler', then would you care to have that
example cited 'ad infinitum' as 'proof' of your inability to play chess?)

By the way, I already have observed that there's no shortage of trolls
who feed each other by writing mutually supporting posts (A: "It must be
true because B says so!" B: "It must be true because A says so!"), even
though often there seems to be no evidence at the bottom to support them.

concerning you, your integrity,

Here's a summary of my position:

I *miscopied while typing* (which I have done previously) my sentence
"Neither she or I..." as "Neither she nor I...". I have apologised for it.

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.
I would suggest that this issue of English usage be submitted to one or more
professors of English. (Perhaps I shall learn something new about it.)

Given what Royce Campbell had written, I *sincerely believed* that he was
*not* "amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling". After Mr. Campbell's
quotation, 'Nor I', I added a 'clarification' (Mr. Campbell's term) of what
I thought was his intended predicate (about "...Angelo DePalma's trolling")
as a *strictly parenthetical comment*.

As far as I know, when a *parenthetical comment* is appended to a quotation,
that parenthetical comment is *not* being attributed to the author of that
quotation (in this case, Royce Campbell), and a well-educated reader should
be expected to know that. Accordingly, I have followed a standard practice,
as I had understood it, for handling quotations and parenthetical comments.
If a more experienced scholar would care to inform me that I have been
mistaken in my treatment of quotations and parenthetical comments, then
I shall consider his or her advice carefully.

Unfortunately, Royce Campbell seems to have jumped to the worst possible
conclusions about my motives and made some unwarranted assumptions about me.
In part, that seems to be on account of his misunderstanding (or perhaps mine)
with regard to the treatment of quotations and parenthetical comments.

and, as Mr. Booz might suggest, your intellectual dishonesty.

*If* Royce Campbell's quoting Stan Booz with approval, then he should read the
evidence about Stan Booz's dishonesty in this post (and other related posts in
that thread), which has a link to more evidence about Stan Booz's lies.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D50713ED7

"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 2003, "Bill posted this on chess.misc")

I demand a retraction.

Royce, I already have explained my position (above).
I have no objection to expressing the record clearly.

Here's the relevant last part of the exchange between Royce Campbell and me:

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

On 2 April 2004, Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') wrote to Nick:
"Nor I."

--Nick

"Nick" wrote:
"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."

I make no assumptions. Do you? 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:
"Nick, Nick, Nick. I am afraid you have committed a gross error, for which an apology is absolutely necessary. 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. You
attributed this falsehood to my name.

Our previous encounters have been civil, intellectual, and virtually free of the common trolling practiced by many here. You have
made many posts on many different subjects concerning the actions of people on these newsgroups. We may now, it seems, cite this
example ad infinitum concerning you, your integrity, and, as Mr. Booz might suggest, your intellectual dishonesty.

I demand a retraction."

"Nick" responded:
"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."

Although weak, this argument cannot be refuted by me, and therefore I must accept it as true. Nevertheless, what I said remains
true as well (You made a grammatical error. You corrected that error without comment.).

"Nick" continued with this rather long diatribe ...
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.

For example, in the thread, "Legal threats from Polgar and Truong"
(January 2004), I committed a similar but even "gross(er) error" (to adapt
your phrase) by my *miscopying* of my original sentence, "You have the
*right* to decide...", which came out in my post *mistyped* as, "You have
the *write* to decide..." And then I was trolled for a while on account
of that error in typing when copying a sentence.

So which of these alternatives would you believe is more probable?

1) I *intentionally misquoted* (as you have implied about my error in typing
when copying a sentence here) my original sentence "You have the *right*
to decide..." as "You have the *write* to decide..." in order to make
myself appear ignorant enough to be 'credited' with that example of
near illiteracy in English.
2) I *unintentionally miscopied* part of my original sentence.

Clearly, the latter alternative is far more probable, and that's what
happened, as it did in the sentence to which you have objected.

.... trying to relate this *transcript* error to other typographical errors he has made. This essay is irrelevant, and inconsistent
in addressing the crux of my complaint. He did, however, finish this with:
"You have read my explanation. I am sorry that it happened."

However, it is unclear for what you are sorry. You clarify this later.

Item 1: You are intelligent enough and familiar enough with the English language to communicate in a manner that gives your words
the meaning you intend. You have informed these groups repeatedly about your education. I hope you respect my command of the
language as well. That said, let us continue.

Item 2: I do not twist your words into meanings they do not intend to convey. I expect the same courtesy from you. Such actions
are those of trolls, and as you yourself have stated that you do not consider me a troll, it is highly likely that you would wish to
avoid this moniker yourself.

"Nick" wrote:
"Let's be more specific here. My quotation of Angelo DePalma (1 April 2004)
was completely accurate. My quotation of my response (1 April 2004) was
accurate except for the mistyping when copying of 'or' as 'nor'."

Item 3: You have conveniently neglected the point of my complaint, which is that this 'mistyping' changed the intent of my post.
You further misrepresented my post by adding clarifications that were both unnecessary and inaccurate.

"Nick" wrote:
"Yes, that 'clarification' (of what I then understood was Royce Campbell's
predicate) was added *only within parentheses*, which I believe to be a
standard practice when referring to quoted text."

Irrelevant. In addition, 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? Is not an apology in order for
misrepresenting *my* words?

"I expected that any
well-educated reader should be able to recognise that *all the words
within the parentheses* ('parenthetical material') were *not* being
attributed to Royce Campbell."

Item 4: The fact that the parenthetical words were not mine is not in question. The fact that they conveyed the improper meaning
is! They are, in effect, being attributed to me, by way of explaining my two simple words, 'Nor I.' You even signed my name to
these words as you would any other quote you make. Your intent, I can only assume, was to use my words to reinforce your argument
with Angelo.

"Nick" wrote:
Royce, I have to say that your claimed point about English usage seems
questionable to me. As far as I can tell, you are claiming that there *must*
be a significant distinction in meaning between writing "Neither she *or* I"
and writing "Neither she *nor* I". That alleged significant distinction in
*ordinary English usage* seems unclear to me.

Item 5: I am saying nothing of the kind. I don't care a whit about what you intended in that sentence -- its meaning was clear.
Your retort is pointless, and deflective of the issue.

As far as I know (after having checked a reference on English usage),
when 'neither' is used as a conjunction (as it was in my sentence),
'nor' is *properly preferred in formal English usage* to follow it.
Apparently, however, 'or' often follows 'neither' in *informal English usage*
while having the *same intended meaning*. I can recall hearing or reading
examples (including by university students) of "neither A or B" used
in place of "neither A nor B" while expressing the *same meaning*.

Irrelevent. See Items 1 & 2 & 5.

So, Royce, I have to say that it seems unclear to me exactly why you believe
that there's such a great difference in meaning between "neither A or B" and
"neither A nor B".

See Items 5 and 2.

I concur that "neither A nor B" is more proper in formal
English usage, but it seems excessive for you to condemn me for having lapsed
into some informal English usage by writing "neither A or B".

Items 5 and 2 again. Condemn you?

(Even I don't
normally think and speak only in the terms of formal English usage!)
But most of your post's rhetoric seems excessively judgmental to me.

Judgmental? Go read some of *your* previous posts, Nick. I have been anything BUT judgmental with you. The proper response to my
last post would have been something on the order of "Oh, I see. Yes, I made an error. I apologize." End of story. Yet, 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. A man of integrity would admit
his failing without excuse.

Royce, if you are interested in pursuing this point of English usage any
further, then I would submit that it should be arbitrated by a professor
of English, such as William Hyde. Perhaps I shall learn something new
about English usage, as I recently did about the comparative idioms of
'a storm in a teacup' and 'a tempest in a teapot'. :-)

Why don't you ask him, and let me know what he says. Who fricking cares, Nick? It is irrelevent!


I wrote:
You have also added a clarification to my post, which is not accurate (whether or not true).

"Nick" wrote:
Royce, I don't understand the exact basis of your objection about 'accuracy'.

1) Do you object to my *parenthetical 'clarification'* on the grounds that
an ignorant reader could assume that *the words within the parentheses*
were yours? That assumption would be inaccurate. I regret it if any
reader were ignorant enough to assume that, but, as long as I follow
what I believe to be some standard practices in handling quotations and
parenthetical comments, I would dispute that I should be held entirely
responsible for every ignorant reader's potential misinterpretations.

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

2) Do you object that what I quoted from you *when added to my parenthetical
'clarification'* was a "not accurate" representation of your position?

You are getting warm, but you are not there yet. My position is irrelevent, other than the fact that you represented it as you saw
fit for your own purposes.

If that's the case, then I submit that "whether or not true" is relevant.

Item 6: No, because no clarification was necessary. Had you simply quoted my reply to your (original) post verbatim, I would not
have objected. Since I can no longer presume that you will be intellectually honest when quoting me, I must request that you never
quote me to anyone else again without my permission. You may find that I give that permission, with no remorse, and without prompt,
should you abide by my request.

My sincere understanding of your position was that you were *not* "amused
at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling." Was that *your true position*?

It doesn't matter. See Item 6.

Royce, if you care to inform me *now* that your true position was different,
say, that you were amused by Angelo DePalma's trolling, then I shall take
your word for it and accept that I have misunderstood your true position.

See Item 2. There are more possibilities than A) White and B) Black. My 'true' position is irrelevent.

"Nick" wrote:
I have no doubt that, when my many posts here are taken as a whole, there
have been more than a few spelling, punctuation, grammatical, or usage errors.
*If every time* that I noticed one of those errors, I were to make a specific
comment to the effect of "Here I am correcting my error about X" (as you seem
to be suggesting that I should do), then I have no doubt that I would be
relentlessly denounced as being much too excessively pedantic. Other readers
here have advised me, in effect, "Don't worry too much about the occasional
errors in your writing. Everyone makes some errors. We can understand that
you're only human too."

Irrelevent, off-topic, and accurate (except for the parenthetical assumption).

"Nick" wrote:
What 'falsehood'? Given what you had written, I *sincerely believed*
that you were *not* "amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling", which
is what I appended as a *parenthetical comment* to your quotation, "Nor I."

And ...? And now you have a perfect opportunity to just apologize. But no, you have to continue by repeating your rhetoric ...

Royce, if you care to inform me *now* that you were amused by Angelo DePalma's
trolling, then I shall accept that was your true position.

Irrelevent.

And I shall also
advise you to be *much clearer in expressing it* than just writing the terse
and (now apparently) rather cryptic, "Nor I."

Obviously, I could have been clearer by using the current rgc* style: "Correct is ..." (You see how easy it is, Nick?)

You attributed this falsehood to my name.

No, Royce, I added a 'clarification' (your term) of what I sincerely believed
was your intended predicate (after "Nor I.") as a *parenthetical comment* to
your quotation. That is *not* the same as attributing that *parenthetical
comment* to the author of the quotation--you. I did expect any well-educated
reader *not* to conclude that you had written the *parenthetical comment*.

Of course not. Just apply 'this' meaning to 'these' words is all, huh? What is the difference?

The 'bottom line' here seems to be a misunderstanding between you and me
about what's an acceptable practice in adding comments to quoted text.

No, 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. Adding comments within quoted text falls under editorializing, or interpreting. Either of
these choices should not be corralled with the quote, or the author. For the record, I *do* understand how you may have missed the
intention of my post.

Royce, I also have much appreciated it that we have been able to engage in
some meaningful discussions (even about an issue as extremely controvesial
as racism) without personal recriminations. You have seemed to be among the
more thoughtful writers in the USCF. My only complaints were about a few
occasions when you evidently misunderstood what I thought that I had meant
clearly enough.

Huh? I guess I saw it the other way around (smileyface here)! This isn't a personal issue (yet?), and you will notice I will not
need to resort to name-calling, etc., under any circumstances. If our communication falls beneath that of an adult level, I will
discontinue it.

You have made many posts on many different subjects concerning the actions
of people on these newsgroups.

I have made "many posts on many different subjects".

Rephrase: "You have made many posts concerning the actions of people ..."

I have been trolled in
many ways (you yourself have just noted "the common trolling practiced by
many here"), and sometimes (I lack the time and the inclination to do more)
I have responded by citing sufficient evidence to point out that trolling
for what it really is.

We may now, it seems, cite this example ad infinitum

Royce, you may do that *if* you intend to join the evidently tireless trolls.

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?

(If you were once to commit a 'fingerfehler', then would you care to have that
example cited 'ad infinitum' as 'proof' of your inability to play chess?)

Irrelevent!

By the way, I already have observed that there's no shortage of trolls
who feed each other by writing mutually supporting posts (A: "It must be
true because B says so!" B: "It must be true because A says so!"), even
though often there seems to be no evidence at the bottom to support them.

Irrelevent.

Here's a summary of my position:

I *miscopied while typing* (which I have done previously) my sentence
"Neither she or I..." as "Neither she nor I...". I have apologised for it.

Bingo. Admirable, and completely off target.

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.

I would suggest that this issue of English usage be submitted to one or more
professors of English. (Perhaps I shall learn something new about it.)

And the result is still irrelevent.

Given what Royce Campbell had written, I *sincerely believed* that he was
*not* "amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling". After Mr. Campbell's
quotation, 'Nor I', I added a 'clarification' (Mr. Campbell's term) of what
I thought was his intended predicate (about "...Angelo DePalma's trolling")
as a *strictly parenthetical comment*.

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

As far as I know, when a *parenthetical comment* is appended to a quotation,
that parenthetical comment is *not* being attributed to the author of that
quotation (in this case, Royce Campbell), and a well-educated reader should
be expected to know that.

Unless the parenthetical is used as an explanitory vehicle and bundled within the confines of the quotation, which is credited to
the author, as happened in this instance.

Accordingly, I have followed a standard practice,
as I had understood it, for handling quotations and parenthetical comments.
If a more experienced scholar would care to inform me that I have been
mistaken in my treatment of quotations and parenthetical comments, then
I shall consider his or her advice carefully.

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?

In part, that seems to be on account of his misunderstanding (or perhaps mine)
with regard to the treatment of quotations and parenthetical comments.


*If* Royce Campbell's quoting Stan Booz with approval,

He *isn't*


I demand a retraction.

Royce, I already have explained my position (above).
I have no objection to expressing the record clearly.

Then do so.

Here's the relevant last part of the exchange between Royce Campbell and me:

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

On 2 April 2004, Royce Campbell ('sandirhodes') wrote to Nick:
"Nor I."

And here you fall short again. It is very simple, Nick.

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?

You're carrying on like a pair of three-year-olds fighting over a toy,
neither of you having the wits to see that you're breaking it. Frankly,
as somebody who wants to play with that toy in the future, I object.

Take it to E-mail, please. It would be a shame to killfile either of you
and miss the interesting posts you write when you actually have something
to say.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Sumerian Chair (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a chair that's really old but
you can never put it down!