Louis Blair wrote:
Terry wrote (Thu, 6 Apr 2006 18:39:36 +0100)
More f**king american chess politics.
I wish they would stop polluting this newsgroup.
Being an ignorant lot - they will carry on of course.

I am reading this thread in rec.games.chess.misc.

I suspect that Terry's reading this thread (at least
before he reset his filters) in rec.games.chess.misc,
*not* rec.games.chess.politics. I suspect that
Terry was expressing his objection to the 'ignorant
lot' of American writers who like to cross-post their
opinions about USCF politics to rec.games.chess.misc.

I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
goes on in other countries. Why is there not
more from other countries?

Several readers from outside the United States have
let me know that they prefer not to read, let alone to
write, in rec.games.chess.politics because it's a
cesspit of abuse and dishonesty. RGCP is a
de facto US political newsgroup, and it seems
dominated by many abusive and dishonest
American writers, who usually seem to be
jingoistic and sometimes seem to be racist.
Many of those American writers seem extremely
intolerant of any real or perceived criticism of the
United States and seem unwilling to listen seriously
to what a perceived foreign writer might have to say.

As far as I know, more than a few American writers
have quit reading and writing in RGCP because even
they perceive it as a cesspit of abuse and dishonesty.
Is there any reason that many more non-American writers
should feel encouraged to begin writing in RGCP? No.

--Nick

I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
goes on in other countries. Why is there not
more from other countries?

I could post about chess from other countries, but then again, I am
distracted.

Crazy chess players on this newsgroup are threatening to kill people
from the other countries (like me.) We never did much to anyone to
deserve this treatment, either.

Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE

all rgckf, all the time....

Jr, do you approve of Sam Sloan's conduct in the above-referenced
matter?

Do you endorse his candidacy for the USCF Board?

These are simple questions. You're an anon: you can give an honest
answer without embarrassment.

10152763

Louis Blair asked:

"I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
goes on in other countries. Why is there not
more from other countries?"


I have seen some chess discussion here from posters who were
obviously not Americans. The problem is, their comments and the
replies always seem to degenerate into political battles regarding
America's foreign affairs (i.e. wars). What Nick Bourbaki has called
jingoist Americans all gang up on the poor loner, and he soon tires of
fighting off the attacks.

Another issue is that many foreigners do not speak (or write) English
as a first language, if at all.

And of course, the main reason we don't see more postings here by
non-Americans is that in other countries, people actually have to
*work* for a living. That's right, forty hours is not the end of their
work week; and when they get home they don't park the Lexus in the
2-car garage, turn on their 52 inch Sony TV, and then boot up their
notebook computer to check how their Google stock is doing. Instead,
they do laundry, wash dishes (yes, by hand), and even cook their own
food! Is the floor dirty? Then grab a broom -- not a Hoover
self-propelled Super-dooper vacuum with built-in DVD player....

Jr, do you approve of Sam Sloan's conduct in the above-referenced
matter?

Do you endorse his candidacy for the USCF Board?

These are simple questions. You're an anon: you can give an honest
answer without embarrassment.


More specifically: Sloan accused the parents of a molested child of
themselves being complicit in the molestation, and, separately, of
having themselves "abused" their child.

The context is Sloan's defense of his acquaintance, the convicted child
molester Jefferson Poland.

I think you're morally capable of defending Sloan's conduct, jr.

Larry "Thai soldiers on leave" Parr is also up to the challenge.

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

jr wrote:
Instead of changing the subject can Bill Brock (politikalhack)
explain why the redesign report is classified?

Instead of changing the subject, can little jr (Wmiketwo? FedUp?
Larry Parr?) explain how in January 2006 he claimed to know all about
Richard Laurie, but in April 2006 said "it's all new to me"?

Taylor, time to stop obsessing on how you now appear after what you wrote in
2001/2. That was also not about any content, just personality
confrontations, and you admitted to me that Evans couldn't get a fair shake
at Chesscafe in response to clan-of-Winter articles. Your own unpublished
letter hardy address any topic, rather than complain about not taking up
more space in Chess Life.

The title of /this/ thread asks after the design report for USCF's website
and for ChessLife, viz; why is it secret? Is this a personality issue for
you? Is everything?

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

jr wrote:
Instead of changing the subject can Bill Brock (politikalhack)
explain why the redesign report is classified?

Instead of changing the subject, can little jr (Wmiketwo? FedUp?
Larry Parr?) explain how in January 2006 he claimed to know all about
Richard Laurie, but in April 2006 said "it's all new to me"?

Taylor, time to stop obsessing on how you now appear after what you wrote in
2001/2. That was also not about any content, just personality
confrontations, and you admitted to me that Evans couldn't get a fair shake
at Chesscafe in response to clan-of-Winter articles. Your own unpublished
letter hardy address any topic, rather than complain about not taking up
more space in Chess Life.

Matchlessly turbid and inventive, as always, Phil. As the success of
"The Da Vinci Code" has shown, there is a big market for wildly
imaginative fiction with a veneer of plausibility. Why waste your time
making stuff up here for nothing, when you could be making big bucks?
As for the point of my above post, let me cite your own words:

" ... If you want to be critical of specific people, write your own
name, otherwise
you are much stranger than those you criticise! ..." - Phil Innes (Wed,
29 Mar 2006 14:28:33 GMT) (to politikalhack)

This indicates a negative attitude on your part toward pseudonymous
posters. You were therefore asked:

"Would Phil Innes apply this sort of thinking to jr?" - Louis
Blair (29 Mar 2006
07:36:53 -0800)

You replied:

"I would apply it to anyone who talks in a deprecating manner
about people with real names. So, yes." - Phil Innes (Thu, 30 Mar 2006
13:31:13 GMT)

I am going to number the next few logical steps, for clarity.

1. The above quotes establish that you disapprove of jr posting
anonymously.
2. The fact that he often "talks in a deprecating manner about people
with real names" must only increase that disapproval.
3. It seems reasonable, then, that your disapproval should increase
*even further* if it were shown that jr had lied.
We have proof of that, provided by Dr. Blair:

"I have read Richard Laurie's exchanges with Kingston who secretly
tried to get him to retract an item Laurie submitted to Chess Life." --
jr posting 8 Jan 2006 12:21:20

"Larry, please tell us more about playwright Richard Laurie. IT'S
ALL NEW TO ME and sounds like another juicy scandal." -- jr posting, 2
Apr 2006 09:20:05 (emphasis added.)

You see? In January jr claimed to know all about my correspondence
with Laurie. Less than 3 months later, he claims NOT to know. As
amnesia seems out as an explanation, this is commonly called a lie.

Jr has made no comment on this. How about you?

The title of /this/ thread asks after the design report for USCF's website
and for ChessLife, viz; why is it secret?

Without real information, I can only speculate. A few guesses:
I don't take out an ad in the NY Times about where and when I'm going
on vacation.
Your wife does not post her grocery list here every week.
Macy's doesn't tell Gimble's.
Ford and Chevy do not show the chassis of next year's models before
unveiling the complete car.
Unless it's Victoria's Secret, fashion designers do not first show
models in their underwear, then later fully dressed.

None of these can reasonably be considered efforts to conceal a dark
secret. I would think USCF's reasons are similar to one or more of
them. It is Larry Parr who, as usual, wants to portray this as
something clandestine and sinister.

Is this a personality issue for you?

Um, no.

Is everything?

Um, no.

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

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

jr wrote:
Instead of changing the subject can Bill Brock (politikalhack)
explain why the redesign report is classified?

Instead of changing the subject, can little jr (Wmiketwo? FedUp?
Larry Parr?) explain how in January 2006 he claimed to know all about
Richard Laurie, but in April 2006 said "it's all new to me"?

Taylor, time to stop obsessing on how you now appear after what you wrote
in
2001/2. That was also not about any content, just personality
confrontations, and you admitted to me that Evans couldn't get a fair
shake
at Chesscafe in response to clan-of-Winter articles. Your own unpublished
letter hardy address any topic, rather than complain about not taking up
more space in Chess Life.

Matchlessly turbid and inventive, as always, Phil. As the success of
"The Da Vinci Code" has shown, there is a big market for wildly
imaginative fiction with a veneer of plausibility. Why waste your time
making stuff up here for nothing, when you could be making big bucks?
As for the point of my above post, let me cite your own words:

The point above hoped your obsessive behavior would not continue to plague
all subject, forever, and to note that this thread was about the re-design
of Cl and the web-site.

" ... If you want to be critical of specific people, write your own
name, otherwise
you are much stranger than those you criticise! ..." - Phil Innes (Wed,
29 Mar 2006 14:28:33 GMT) (to politikalhack)

This indicates a negative attitude on your part toward pseudonymous
posters. You were therefore asked:

"Would Phil Innes apply this sort of thinking to jr?" - Louis
Blair (29 Mar 2006
07:36:53 -0800)

You replied:

"I would apply it to anyone who talks in a deprecating manner
about people with real names. So, yes." - Phil Innes (Thu, 30 Mar 2006
13:31:13 GMT)

I am going to number the next few logical steps, for clarity.

Which is all very well Taylor, except that you prove my point. You are so
OBSSESSED with afronts you feel you have received that you then plaster them
over every subject, and here you bore on about anons for another 700
words...

So while you may make comments from other threads about other people on
other issues, that is all about you.

This thread is not about you. Your writing is very odd indeed, and from a
psychological perspective, you are actually indifferent to what you read -
and you want to keep posing away in public about a subject that you know I
have no respect for your own honesty, and which contains no objectivity.

The wildly imaginative fiction is YOURS. This thread is not about that. Go
and Da Vinci Code somewhere else.

Taylor Kingston denies this is a personality issue for him, but only writes
about his and other peoples personalities.

Rhetoric is saying what you do, philosophy is doing what you say. What
Taylor Kingston does is not what he says he does, its rhetorical self
promotion.

And all this to come up with an answer: 'all I can do is speculate'. The
only contribution to the subject, and then we CL as Victoria's Secret as
rationale.

Good Grief!

Phil Innes

1. The above quotes establish that you disapprove of jr posting
anonymously.
2. The fact that he often "talks in a deprecating manner about people
with real names" must only increase that disapproval.
3. It seems reasonable, then, that your disapproval should increase
*even further* if it were shown that jr had lied.
We have proof of that, provided by Dr. Blair:

"I have read Richard Laurie's exchanges with Kingston who secretly
tried to get him to retract an item Laurie submitted to Chess Life." --
jr posting 8 Jan 2006 12:21:20

"Larry, please tell us more about playwright Richard Laurie. IT'S
ALL NEW TO ME and sounds like another juicy scandal." -- jr posting, 2
Apr 2006 09:20:05 (emphasis added.)

You see? In January jr claimed to know all about my correspondence
with Laurie. Less than 3 months later, he claims NOT to know. As
amnesia seems out as an explanation, this is commonly called a lie.

Jr has made no comment on this. How about you?

The title of /this/ thread asks after the design report for USCF's
website
and for ChessLife, viz; why is it secret?

Without real information, I can only speculate. A few guesses:
I don't take out an ad in the NY Times about where and when I'm going
on vacation.
Your wife does not post her grocery list here every week.
Macy's doesn't tell Gimble's.
Ford and Chevy do not show the chassis of next year's models before
unveiling the complete car.
Unless it's Victoria's Secret, fashion designers do not first show
models in their underwear, then later fully dressed.

None of these can reasonably be considered efforts to conceal a dark
secret. I would think USCF's reasons are similar to one or more of
them. It is Larry Parr who, as usual, wants to portray this as
something clandestine and sinister.

Is this a personality issue for you?

Um, no.

Is everything?

Um, no.

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ps.com...

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

jr wrote:
Instead of changing the subject can Bill Brock (politikalhack)
explain why the redesign report is classified?

Instead of changing the subject, can little jr (Wmiketwo? FedUp?
Larry Parr?) explain how in January 2006 he claimed to know all about
Richard Laurie, but in April 2006 said "it's all new to me"?

Taylor, time to stop obsessing on how you now appear after what you wrote
in
2001/2. That was also not about any content, just personality
confrontations, and you admitted to me that Evans couldn't get a fair
shake
at Chesscafe in response to clan-of-Winter articles. Your own unpublished
letter hardy address any topic, rather than complain about not taking up
more space in Chess Life.

Matchlessly turbid and inventive, as always, Phil. As the success of
"The Da Vinci Code" has shown, there is a big market for wildly
imaginative fiction with a veneer of plausibility. Why waste your time
making stuff up here for nothing, when you could be making big bucks?
As for the point of my above post, let me cite your own words:

The point above hoped your obsessive behavior would not continue to plague
all subject, forever, and to note that this thread was about the re-design
of Cl and the web-site.

" ... If you want to be critical of specific people, write your own
name, otherwise
you are much stranger than those you criticise! ..." - Phil Innes (Wed,
29 Mar 2006 14:28:33 GMT) (to politikalhack)

This indicates a negative attitude on your part toward pseudonymous
posters. You were therefore asked:

"Would Phil Innes apply this sort of thinking to jr?" - Louis
Blair (29 Mar 2006
07:36:53 -0800)

You replied:

"I would apply it to anyone who talks in a deprecating manner
about people with real names. So, yes." - Phil Innes (Thu, 30 Mar 2006
13:31:13 GMT)

I am going to number the next few logical steps, for clarity.

Which is all very well Taylor, except that you prove my point. You are so
OBSSESSED with afronts you feel you have received that you then plaster them
over every subject, and here you bore on about anons for another 700
words...

So, in other words, you actually did not mean it when you condemned
jr's anonymity, and you are indifferent to his mendacity?

So while you may make comments from other threads about other people on
other issues, that is all about you.

This thread is not about you. Your writing is very odd indeed, and from a
psychological perspective, you are actually indifferent to what you read -
and you want to keep posing away in public about a subject that you know I
have no respect for your own honesty, and which contains no objectivity.

The wildly imaginative fiction is YOURS. This thread is not about that. Go
and Da Vinci Code somewhere else.

So then, you might comment in a thread devoted specifically to jr's
anonymity and mendacity?

Taylor Kingston denies this is a personality issue for him, but only writes
about his and other peoples personalities.

Rhetoric is saying what you do, philosophy is doing what you say. What
Taylor Kingston does is not what he says he does, its rhetorical self
promotion.

And all this to come up with an answer: 'all I can do is speculate'. The
only contribution to the subject, and then we CL as Victoria's Secret as
rationale.

Good Grief!

Phil Innes

1. The above quotes establish that you disapprove of jr posting
anonymously.
2. The fact that he often "talks in a deprecating manner about people
with real names" must only increase that disapproval.
3. It seems reasonable, then, that your disapproval should increase
*even further* if it were shown that jr had lied.
We have proof of that, provided by Dr. Blair:

"I have read Richard Laurie's exchanges with Kingston who secretly
tried to get him to retract an item Laurie submitted to Chess Life." --
jr posting 8 Jan 2006 12:21:20

"Larry, please tell us more about playwright Richard Laurie. IT'S
ALL NEW TO ME and sounds like another juicy scandal." -- jr posting, 2
Apr 2006 09:20:05 (emphasis added.)

You see? In January jr claimed to know all about my correspondence
with Laurie. Less than 3 months later, he claims NOT to know. As
amnesia seems out as an explanation, this is commonly called a lie.

Jr has made no comment on this. How about you?

The title of /this/ thread asks after the design report for USCF's
website
and for ChessLife, viz; why is it secret?

Without real information, I can only speculate. A few guesses:
I don't take out an ad in the NY Times about where and when I'm going
on vacation.
Your wife does not post her grocery list here every week.
Macy's doesn't tell Gimble's.
Ford and Chevy do not show the chassis of next year's models before
unveiling the complete car.
Unless it's Victoria's Secret, fashion designers do not first show
models in their underwear, then later fully dressed.

None of these can reasonably be considered efforts to conceal a dark
secret. I would think USCF's reasons are similar to one or more of
them. It is Larry Parr who, as usual, wants to portray this as
something clandestine and sinister.

Is this a personality issue for you?

Um, no.

Is everything?

Um, no.

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



Which is all very well Taylor, except that you prove my point. You are so
OBSSESSED with afronts you feel you have received that you then plaster
them
over every subject, and here you bore on about anons for another 700
words...

So, in other words, you actually did not mean it when you condemned
jr's anonymity, and you are indifferent to his mendacity?

In the same words I refer again to Taylor Kingstons obsessional attitude to
personalities, not an approach ot objective fact.

----------

The wildly imaginative fiction is YOURS. This thread is not about that.
Go
and Da Vinci Code somewhere else.

So then, you might comment in a thread devoted specifically to jr's
anonymity and mendacity?

Taylor still doesn't understand my comment about what this thread is about -
and continues to obssess on 'jr', nevermind he so obviously denies [or
rather avoids] that he has also written [to himself] as an anon.

No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What I
wrote about it was snipped. But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
content design is secret in rational to a public non profit, that does not
sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?

Phil Innes