"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Let's just get to the crux of this issue:-

"Just to be sure, I was
in no way defending Parr's utterly riduclous defense of Evans.*If* you
concluded that it really benefitted American chess to support a chess
gossip columnist (and I consider that extremely unlikely),
Evans would be just about the last person on earth to write such a
column. He seems closer to the center of the chess world than my cat,
but not dramatically so."

I asked you above if the particular line I quoted related to Evans or the
new editor. The material above address neither, it address "Parr's utterly
ridiculous defense of", and continues with the metaphysical assertion "*If*
you concluded..." which is a deliberately phrased statement not of Kane's
opinion - he does not say "I conclude that...", but uses a rhetorical form
where the 'you' can mean Parr or himself, or indeed, anyone.

Then there is the 'it' in "that it really benefitted ". Is this 'it'
something to do with what Parr wrote, in his "ridiculous defence"?

Then the writing becomes hypothetical with 'would', as in "Evans would be
just about the last person on earth to write such a
column." Which unclearly refers to the 'gossip columnist' comment in the
previous sentence, and equally unclearly does not refer to what Evans /does/
write but 'would write'.

The final sentences are hyperbolous, and I suppose that it intends an
ironical reflection on the not-quite 4 times US chess champion Kane-cat, and
ends with a further reflection, introducing 'dramatically' being a no-doubt
unintended allusion, when 'substantially' was intended.

This MIASMA of attributions, irony, allusion, and metaphysical allusion, is
the correction and clarification [ROFL] to the original context, I rest my
case.

Phil Innes

"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

5. Read the above sentence with brain engaged and if needed allow your
gray matter to substitute this one word"people". (What do you think of
people,mostly men,who say that they would object to the book becoming
part of a high schools studies course.........)

Actually, this is a good correction Rob. Never let it be said that I can't
be proved wrong.

My ERROR #1

You correctly point out that, for example, I could have been referring to
the phenomenally gifted Kane-cat, as in "mostly men cats would object..."
which was never my intention. I did indeed mean that it was people not cats
who had reviewed and objected.... and the objecting people were mostly men.
Of course, a more sinistre error now occurs to me!

Of course, this error gives me a great idea for a tv series! Various chess
historians and reviewers sit around with a bunch of cats trying to make
sense of all the world's problems, as caused by other people. This would not
only demonstrate interspecial intelligence - the comparison would actually
do quite a lot for the status of cats.

Now... fell better? Go get a snack of milk and cookies.
:-)

My Error #2

Yes. It would avoid the following confusion that some people may have had
about non-men, or to use a term, about 'women', and, as in my example above,
sufficiently differentiation then from cats.

It is unknown if the Chess Journalists of America actually require this
difference to be made explicit - though if they were somewhat inclined to
late-Victorian mores, they might!

Famously in the Lady Chatterly trial just 50 years ago, the hapless
prosecutor turned to the jury waiving the book at them and asked them "if
they would want their servants or wives to read it."

How time flies!

Cordially, Phil

Rob
---

"Mostly men" is a term used by near-IMs to describe a group of chess
players which is composed mostly of men, though on some occasions, it
can and does include non-men.

Chess One wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Let's just get to the crux of this issue:-

"Just to be sure, I was
in no way defending Parr's utterly riduclous defense of Evans.*If* you
concluded that it really benefitted American chess to support a chess
gossip columnist (and I consider that extremely unlikely),
Evans would be just about the last person on earth to write such a
column. He seems closer to the center of the chess world than my cat,
but not dramatically so."

I asked you above if the particular line I quoted related to Evans or the
new editor. The material above address neither, it address "Parr's utterly
ridiculous defense of", and continues with the metaphysical assertion "*If*
you concluded..." which is a deliberately phrased statement not of Kane's
opinion - he does not say "I conclude that...", but uses a rhetorical form
where the 'you' can mean Parr or himself, or indeed, anyone.

Then there is the 'it' in "that it really benefitted ". Is this 'it'
something to do with what Parr wrote, in his "ridiculous defence"?

Then the writing becomes hypothetical with 'would', as in "Evans would be
just about the last person on earth to write such a
column." Which unclearly refers to the 'gossip columnist' comment in the
previous sentence, and equally unclearly does not refer to what Evans /does/
write but 'would write'.

The final sentences are hyperbolous, and I suppose that it intends an
ironical reflection on the not-quite 4 times US chess champion Kane-cat, and
ends with a further reflection, introducing 'dramatically' being a no-doubt
unintended allusion, when 'substantially' was intended.

This MIASMA of attributions, irony, allusion, and metaphysical allusion, is
the correction and clarification [ROFL] to the original context, I rest my
case.

Phil Innes


This is really simple Phil. See if you can wrap yourself around it.

The post you quoted never mentioned Evans, Chess Life, or its editor.

The second statement specifically mentions Evans. It uses phrases like
"Parr's ridiculous defense of Evans" and "last person on earth to write
such a column."

If you are so stupid as to be unable to infer Kane's opinion on the
Evans firing from the latter post, how in the world could you possibly
have reached any conclusion about it from the former?

This is even sillier than your argument that Winning with the
Nimzo-Indian was intended to be too hard for a player rated 1950 and to
easy for a player rated 2300.

Please don't waste my time with further nonsense about your concern for
standards.

Chess One wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

5. Read the above sentence with brain engaged and if needed allow your
gray matter to substitute this one word"people". (What do you think of
people,mostly men,who say that they would object to the book becoming
part of a high schools studies course.........)

Actually, this is a good correction Rob. Never let it be said that I can't
be proved wrong.

My ERROR #1

You correctly point out that, for example, I could have been referring to
the phenomenally gifted Kane-cat, as in "mostly men cats would object..."
which was never my intention. I did indeed mean that it was people not cats
who had reviewed and objected.... and the objecting people were mostly men.
Of course, a more sinistre error now occurs to me!

Of course, this error gives me a great idea for a tv series! Various chess
historians and reviewers sit around with a bunch of cats trying to make
sense of all the world's problems, as caused by other people. This would not
only demonstrate interspecial intelligence - the comparison would actually
do quite a lot for the status of cats.

Now... fell better? Go get a snack of milk and cookies.
:-)

My Error #2

Yes. It would avoid the following confusion that some people may have had
about non-men, or to use a term, about 'women', and, as in my example above,
sufficiently differentiation then from cats.

It is unknown if the Chess Journalists of America actually require this
difference to be made explicit - though if they were somewhat inclined to
late-Victorian mores, they might!

Famously in the Lady Chatterly trial just 50 years ago, the hapless
prosecutor turned to the jury waiving the book at them and asked them "if
they would want their servants or wives to read it."

How time flies!

Cordially, Phil

LOL!!!!!!! :-)


Rob
---

"Mostly men" is a term used by near-IMs to describe a group of chess
players which is composed mostly of men, though on some occasions, it
can and does include non-men.

The Historian wrote:
Chess One wrote:
i post the original of the is message to chess misc as well as chess
politics, since as we all know, some books, authors and publishing houses
have been and still are banned...


Is Chessville still banning Moravian books? Last time I checked they
weren't carrying any.

Why ask this question? "Neil's first book, a biography of American
master Sydney T. Sharp (1885-1953), will be published later this year
by Moravian Chess."

http://ccn.correspondencechess.com/neil.htm

Not carring your work hardly qualifies as a ban. Are there other
"authors of note" whose works are exclusivly on the publisher?

Rob

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:ZNo3g.2450$Ze.2243@trndny06...

"David Kane" wrote in message
...

I have no obligation to rephrase my words for you. When I told
you that I stood by my original words, you knew enough
to issue a complete correction.

No. You misunderstand. I offered YOU to make your own correction of
context.
I did not admit any deliberate wrong doing or miscasting of a context.

Now you are offering your failure to admit your error
as evidence there was no error??? You made an error.
You had an obligation to correct it. It's really quite simple.

*And* the error has been explained to you countless
times.

What is sad is that your are playing the role as Parr's
loyal lap dog, but even he doesn't try to argue that
there was some basis for presenting my statement
as being relevant to the ending of Evans' column.
For once, why don't you try thinking for yourself?
I think you will find it liberating.

The Historical import contains the error. After all, this is a record of a
chess encounter, and the chess itself is not incidental to the history, it
is the fons et origo of it.

The review contains 10 previous pages that *do* deal with the chess.
Yet you think it's impermissible to not mention the chess itself again
when making a one-paragraph *historical* point. This, to you, is an
awful oversight.

That's like saying that, if I write 10 pages about the empire state
buidling mentioning its height, size, history, etc., etc., etc., and
then write one paragraph saying it has an art-deco interior, it is an
oversight "the size of the titanic" to not mention its height *yet
again*.

P.S.

What's with all the "titanic" and "grand canyon" references? It is
well-known that GM Keene, OBE, is prone to using hyperbole (every
position is "incredible" or "amazing", every combination "shocking" and
"exploding", every match a "titanic struggle", etc., etc.), but I
didn't know this unfortunate tendency is catching.

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Let's just get to the crux of this issue:-

"Just to be sure, I was
in no way defending Parr's utterly riduclous defense of Evans.*If* you
concluded that it really benefitted American chess to support a chess
gossip columnist (and I consider that extremely unlikely),
Evans would be just about the last person on earth to write such a
column. He seems closer to the center of the chess world than my cat,
but not dramatically so."

I asked you above if the particular line I quoted related to Evans or the
new editor. The material above address neither, it address "Parr's
utterly
ridiculous defense of", and continues with the metaphysical assertion
"*If*
you concluded..." which is a deliberately phrased statement not of Kane's
opinion - he does not say "I conclude that...", but uses a rhetorical
form
where the 'you' can mean Parr or himself, or indeed, anyone.

Then there is the 'it' in "that it really benefitted ". Is this 'it'
something to do with what Parr wrote, in his "ridiculous defence"?

Then the writing becomes hypothetical with 'would', as in "Evans would be
just about the last person on earth to write such a
column." Which unclearly refers to the 'gossip columnist' comment in the
previous sentence, and equally unclearly does not refer to what Evans
/does/
write but 'would write'.

The final sentences are hyperbolous, and I suppose that it intends an
ironical reflection on the not-quite 4 times US chess champion Kane-cat,
and
ends with a further reflection, introducing 'dramatically' being a
no-doubt
unintended allusion, when 'substantially' was intended.

This MIASMA of attributions, irony, allusion, and metaphysical allusion,
is
the correction and clarification [ROFL] to the original context, I rest
my
case.

Phil Innes


This is really simple Phil. See if you can wrap yourself around it.

The post you quoted never mentioned Evans, Chess Life, or its editor.

Do you mean excluding

"Just to be sure, I was
in no way defending Parr's utterly riduclous defense of Evans.*"

Is that a mention?

The second statement specifically mentions Evans. It uses phrases like
"Parr's ridiculous defense of Evans" and "last person on earth to write
such a column."

If you are so stupid as to be unable to infer Kane's opinion on the
Evans firing from the latter post,

It does indeed use those phrases, but are they in reference to Parr's
defence, or whatever is meant by 'such' a column?

how in the world could you possibly
have reached any conclusion about it from the former?

This is even sillier than your argument that Winning with the
Nimzo-Indian was intended to be too hard for a player rated 1950 and to
easy for a player rated 2300.

What's this now?

Let me tell you some home truths- you personally are unable to say if 'a
few' and some' are the same, and if they were 'vague' terms, since you said
they were not 'precise', as if not precise and vague were not antonyms. This
is your demonstrated standard of writing.

Please don't waste my time with further nonsense about your concern for
standards.

You have wasted the time of the entire newsgroup with your 'not precise'
terms, that you insist must mean something specific.ROFL!

You cannot even admit that the insensible 'correction' above is inane and
could mean practically anything. When given the opportunity to do so you
prefer to call others silly. ROFL!

You refuse to be as specific as you demand of others. You resolve nothing on
this issue nor on the questions of standards for decency since you are
unable to do so.

Phil Innes

"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...

The Historian wrote:
Chess One wrote:
i post the original of the is message to chess misc as well as chess
politics, since as we all know, some books, authors and publishing
houses
have been and still are banned...


Is Chessville still banning Moravian books? Last time I checked they
weren't carrying any.

Why ask this question? "Neil's first book, a biography of American
master Sydney T. Sharp (1885-1953), will be published later this year
by Moravian Chess."

http://ccn.correspondencechess.com/neil.htm

Not carring your work hardly qualifies as a ban. Are there other
"authors of note" whose works are exclusivly on the publisher?

Rob

I am sure if the publisher wishes that or any other titles reviewed, they
will know what to do. ie, send the publisher review copies.

I googled the site and its a bit difficult to figure out who wrote anything,
and if the books are published by Moravian [more for the birds?] or what are
new titles and what are reprints of expired copyright - the Duchamps title
is of personal interest - Ray Keene just told me what he found in Duchamps'
house in France - I wondered if that was int he book - but I couldn't figure
out at the website how to get beyond a title to a detailed description, or
find any reviews at all.

Unfortunately I do not know who Sydney T. Sharp is, nor what impact he may
have had in chess in order to direct a review to an appropriate reviewer. I
googled his name and came up with nothing. Was he a strong player or
oganiser or writer?

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Let's just get to the crux of this issue:-

"Just to be sure, I was
in no way defending Parr's utterly riduclous defense of Evans.*If* you
concluded that it really benefitted American chess to support a chess
gossip columnist (and I consider that extremely unlikely),
Evans would be just about the last person on earth to write such a
column. He seems closer to the center of the chess world than my cat,
but not dramatically so."

I asked you above if the particular line I quoted related to Evans or the
new editor. The material above address neither, it address "Parr's
utterly
ridiculous defense of", and continues with the metaphysical assertion
"*If*
you concluded..." which is a deliberately phrased statement not of Kane's
opinion - he does not say "I conclude that...", but uses a rhetorical
form
where the 'you' can mean Parr or himself, or indeed, anyone.

Then there is the 'it' in "that it really benefitted ". Is this 'it'
something to do with what Parr wrote, in his "ridiculous defence"?

Then the writing becomes hypothetical with 'would', as in "Evans would be
just about the last person on earth to write such a
column." Which unclearly refers to the 'gossip columnist' comment in the
previous sentence, and equally unclearly does not refer to what Evans
/does/
write but 'would write'.

The final sentences are hyperbolous, and I suppose that it intends an
ironical reflection on the not-quite 4 times US chess champion Kane-cat,
and
ends with a further reflection, introducing 'dramatically' being a
no-doubt
unintended allusion, when 'substantially' was intended.

This MIASMA of attributions, irony, allusion, and metaphysical allusion,
is
the correction and clarification [ROFL] to the original context, I rest
my
case.

Phil Innes


This is really simple Phil. See if you can wrap yourself around it.

The post you quoted never mentioned Evans, Chess Life, or its editor.

Do you mean excluding

No Silly Philly. I was talking about the post you quoted at
Chessville. It did not contain a single reference to Evans, Chess Life
or its editor. And yet you found some alleged context error that
caused you to misrepresent Kane's opinion at Chessville.


"Just to be sure, I was
in no way defending Parr's utterly riduclous defense of Evans.*"

Is that a mention?

The second statement specifically mentions Evans. It uses phrases like
"Parr's ridiculous defense of Evans" and "last person on earth to write
such a column."

If you are so stupid as to be unable to infer Kane's opinion on the
Evans firing from the latter post,

It does indeed use those phrases, but are they in reference to Parr's
defence, or whatever is meant by 'such' a column?

how in the world could you possibly
have reached any conclusion about it from the former?

This is even sillier than your argument that Winning with the
Nimzo-Indian was intended to be too hard for a player rated 1950 and to
easy for a player rated 2300.

What's this now?

Let me tell you some home truths- you personally are unable to say if 'a
few' and some' are the same, and if they were 'vague' terms, since you said
they were not 'precise', as if not precise and vague were not antonyms. This
is your demonstrated standard of writing.

Please don't waste my time with further nonsense about your concern for
standards.

You have wasted the time of the entire newsgroup with your 'not precise'
terms, that you insist must mean something specific.ROFL!

You cannot even admit that the insensible 'correction' above is inane and
could mean practically anything. When given the opportunity to do so you
prefer to call others silly. ROFL!

No Silly Philly, it could not mean practically anything. For example,
it could not mean that Kane was upset with the firing of Larry Evans as
you misrepresented at Chessville.


You refuse to be as specific as you demand of others. You resolve nothing on
this issue nor on the questions of standards for decency since you are
unable to do so.

Phil Innes