7 It is not really my problem if the fantasy
7 of Eric C. Johnson is not very convincing.

_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (March 16, 2007
7:21 am):

7 Like Eric, it has convinced /every/ other
7 reader so far, here and in rgcp, and
7 readers who do not frequently agree with
7 each other. I think Dr. B is in denial,
7 and the only person not convinced is
7 himself.

_
It seems to me that, in his excitement, Phil
Innes has failed to clearly identify what all
these "readers" have been convinced to believe.

***The same 'fantasy' as is the topic we here address - which is the degree
of obfustification on any subjct whatever to which Dr. Blair lends his
attention. Has Dr. Blair forgotten the topic he now denies? Or is he just
confused?

--------

7 Quite obviously this is no challenge to
7 Dr. B's better sense of the content of the
7 biographies, which may indeed be very good
7 ones! The issue has to do with amending
7 what is not good in S. Sloan's writing.

_
I do not remember seeing anyone other than
Phil Innes (and myself when answering Phil
Innes), writing about the "amending" issue.


***Dr. Blair does not address the issue since, as he explains about himself,
he doesn't remember who else addressed it. When Eric Johnson [with whom I
agree with 10% of the time] raises a similar issue, that is termed
'fantasy'. Dr. Blair will also not remember his correspondance with Greg
Kennedy [again 10% agreeing with me] who also pointed out how selective such
'objective' references actually are - since - gosh, that happened a month
ago!
_

7 And the overall issue has to do with
7 governance, which is about COLLECTIVE goals
7 and procedures [not personal preferences -
7 not in this country! Thank God.]. Acting to
7 ban or eliminate the work of another

_
I "act"ed "to try to help Wikipedia to be
aware of what is going on".


*** "To be aware of what is going on!" And what is going on, Mr. Moderator?
The destruction of the good and the bad together, withhout any
descrimination whatever. This is how you 'acted', and how you 'helped'. Let
us see below how happy you are to address your own private 'wants', and
exercise discrimination...


7 achieves nothing other than personal
7 preference,

_
The intended achievement

***What? Who acted to do what?

was to help Wikipedia
administrators to have THEIR preference
involved in the determination of Wikipedia
content that had formerly been determined by
the "personal preference" of Sam Sloan.


***You are saying that Wikipedia administrators would not have removed
Sloan's material unless you 'helped' and they remove all the material as
some matter of policy? My gosh! I wonder in what form such 'help' was to
reduce all his work to rubble?

_
7 even if dressed up as 'objective' critique -
7 which this plainly is not.

_
I did not claim to have done an "'objective'
critique" of Sam Sloan's Wikipedia biographies.


***Ah! And here it is. Neither does Dr. Blair claim anything! But whatever
his help was, it seems, was not objective, and therefore it must have been
subjective right? Of course - Dr. Blair is not even saying this much,
because his tortured language merely says, that he does not claim to have
done - which is not the same as 'did not'. ! )

7 Not everything in Sloan's writing is bad, so
7 where is any discrimination? ...

_
If Phil Innes does not feel that Wikipedia is
being sufficiently discriminating, he is
complaining in the wrong place.

*** No answer to any need to be discriminating from Moderator Blair, who
can't fess up for any of his own 'not objective' actions - [see this post]
and where 'help' is a euphemism for 'complete destruction', and it seems
that the new moderators cannot answer the simplest question about their own
process of determining the good from the bad.

***There is only one thing to do! Dr. Blair must not only be made moderator,
but Chief Moderator. I think this is logical with what I understand of
current standards which a There must be no objective standards, anonymous
moderators reporting to someBill or other need not explain any particular
'moderating' action, and, you know, when board members or other USCF
officials get themselves banned, and then they all run over to rgcp to speak
free! Or at least bray their stuff to the general public.

***Which makes USCF's own forum perfectly antiseptic, and more neutered than
neutral. But at least there is the appearance of governance and openness,
pending the real thing, which, one might hope the next board will encourage.
I think it was Larry Parr [who is much more a Sloan advocate than I, so we
are on opposite sides of the fence] who asked why such vast areas of
administering a chess foundation needed to be secret anyway?

Phil Innes

----- Original Message -----
From: "samhsloan"
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 7:21 AM
Subject: [fide-chess] Goichberg Stacks the USCF Forums with
Pro-Goichberg Mode...


--- In , "robmtchl" robmtchl@... wrote:

If the real issue was chess history, Mr. Sloan has been given a chance
to express himself via Chessville Vignettes. If actual biographies of
players is what interests him then it is here where he should submit
his material. I do not believe he has done so. Why not?
Rob

A stupid question. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia read by
thousands of people all over the world. Any biography posted there
goes right to the top of Google and other search engines.

I do not know who reads Chessville Vignettes, but I am sure that the
number is much smaller and less than the readers of my own website.


*** From 130 countries, 30,000+ chess fans a week. But if Rob Mitchell's
suggestion is 'stupid' then, Mr. Sloan, I think he was correct in the first
place - and your issue has not to do with chess biographies being
available - but about your need to be as completely inflexible as your
opponents.

In short - you deserve what you got. This doesn't make others right, it
makes you as insensible to what is right as they are. I really wonder that
Rob Mitchell wrote you his very kind offer at all! Why present to utter
indifference?

Sam Sloan is himself indifferent to correction, even the slightest
correction, and he shows no more discrimination than 'helper' Blair.

Neither of you seem to give a damn for what is written about chess
personalities - its all or nothing, and more about who wrote what, than what
is written - but the subject is not about you, its about them - at least as
far as Chessville is concerned.

Perhaps that's why our series is popular?

The current number of people reading Sloan Wiki biographies of chess players
is actually ZERO. And this is the result of a very willful indifferance to
normal commmunciations with other people.

From either side of USCF's current political divide, the attentive reader
will notice that this ZERO is the result of even more personality-politics,
as reviewed in these biographic examples, and more broadly.

Phil Innes
------

Sam Sloan

--- In ,
chesspride@... (Eric C. Johnson) wrote
(Thu March 15, 2007 8:06 pm):
7 ...
7 It is not very convincing.
_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:42 am):
7 It is not really my problem if the fantasy
7 of Eric C. Johnson is not very convincing.
7 ...
_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (March 16, 2007
7:21 am):
7 Like Eric, it has convinced /every/ other
7 reader so far, here and in rgcp, and
7 readers who do not frequently agree with
7 each other. I think Dr. B is in denial,
7 and the only person not convinced is
7 himself. ...
_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:24 pm)
7 It seems to me that, in his excitement, Phil
7 Innes has failed to clearly identify what all
7 these "readers" have been convinced to believe.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 The same 'fantasy' as is the topic we here
7 address - which is the degree of obfustification
7 on any subjct whatever to which Dr.Blair lends
7 his attention. Has Dr. Blair forgotten the topic
7 he now denies? Or is he just confused?

_
A number of assertions have been made by Phil
Innes and/or Eric C. Johnson and/or Sam Sloan in
this discussion. I am not sure which one or ones
(if any) Phil Innes has in mind when he refers to
some sort of supposed general agreement.

_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:24 pm)
7 People can look for themselves here, and at
7 threads like:
7
7
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...politics&hl=en
7
7 and
7
7
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...politics&hl=en
7
7 and come to their own conclusions.

_
Phil Innes snips the above links and produces
no specifics of his own from rgcp about the
Wikipedia argument.

_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (March 16, 2007
7:21 am):
7 ... The issue has to do with amending
7 what is not good in S. Sloan's writing. ...
_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:24 pm)
7 I do not remember seeing anyone other than
7 Phil Innes (and myself when answering Phil
7 Innes), writing about the "amending" issue.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 Dr. Blair does not address the issue since,

_
Nonsense. I have addressed the issue:
_
"... I see no reason why I should be
obliged to be involved in 'amend'ing Sam
Sloan material." - Louis Blair (Tue
Mar 13, 2007 10:04 pm)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 as he explains about himself, he doesn't
7 remember who else addressed it. When Eric
7 Johnson [with whom I agree with 10% of the
7 time] raises a similar issue,

_
I did not see ANYTHING in the Thu Mar 15, 2007
8:06 pm Eric C. Johnson note about "amending
what is not good in S. Sloan's writing".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 that is termed 'fantasy'.

_
Eric C. Johnson wrote about some speech of
an imaginary character, denying an intention
to tattle. Although the speech incorporated
some of my phrases, it was nevertheless a
fantasy, as I had not written anything about
the "tattletale" accusation. (In response, to
the Eric C. Johnson note, I DID address the
issue so that he could see the difference
between reality and the product of his
imagination.)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 Dr. Blair will also not remember his
7 correspondance with Greg Kennedy [again 10%
7 agreeing with me] who also pointed out how
7 selective such 'objective' references actually
7 are ...

_
I assume that Phil Innes is referring to some
"help bot" notes that were posted awhile ago,
and, if so, I do indeed remember them and Phil
Innes fails in his attempt at prediction. I see
no justification for regarding those notes as
agreement with the Phil Innes, Eric C. Johnson,
or Sam Sloan comments about my Wikipedia
activity.

_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (March 16, 2007
7:21 am):
7 ... Acting to ban or eliminate the work of
7 another
_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:24 pm)
7 I "act"ed "to try to help Wikipedia to be
7 aware of what is going on".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 ... And what is going on, Mr. Moderator? The
7 destruction of the good and the bad together,
7 withhout any descrimination whatever. This is
7 how you 'acted', and how you 'helped'. ...

_
"... I am not a moderator for Wikipedia
and have made no attempt to be a
moderator for them. If any 'destruction'
was done, it was done by them because
they believed it was the appropriate
action indicated by Wikipedia rules. ..."
- Louis Blair (Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:04 am)

_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (March 16, 2007
7:21 am):
7 achieves nothing other than personal
7 preference,
_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:24 pm)
7 The intended achievement was to help Wikipedia
7 administrators to have THEIR preference
7 involved in the determination of Wikipedia
7 content that had formerly been determined by
7 the "personal preference" of Sam Sloan.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 ... Who acted to do what?

_
"... My only contribution was the note
(sent to a number of Wikipedia
participants) that Sam Sloan himself
quoted on 13 Mar 2007 14:04:21 -0700.
It advocated no course of action."
- Louis Blair (14 Mar 2007 23:17:32 -0700)
_
"... I think that it is appropriate to try
to help Wikipedia to be aware of what is
going on, ..." - Louis Blair (Thu
Mar 15, 2007 2:19 am)
_
For details on who acted to do what after
that point, I suggest that Phil Innes
consult Wikipedia records. He might start
with:
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ss_biographies

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 You are saying that Wikipedia
7 administrators would not have removed
7 Sloan's material unless you 'helped' and
7 they remove all the material as some
7 matter of policy?

_
No. I am not saying those things. If Phil
Innes wants to claim that those things are
true, it is up to him to provide the
justification.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 My gosh! I wonder in what form such 'help' was to
7 reduce all his work to rubble?

_
"... My only contribution was the note
(sent to a number of Wikipedia
participants) that Sam Sloan himself
quoted on 13 Mar 2007 14:04:21 -0700.
It advocated no course of action."
- Louis Blair (14 Mar 2007 23:17:32 -0700)
_
"... If any 'destruction' was done, it
was done by [Wikipedia people] because
they believed it was the appropriate
action indicated by Wikipedia rules. ..."
- Louis Blair (Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:04 am)

_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (March 16, 2007
7:21 am):
7 even if dressed up as 'objective' critique -
7 which this plainly is not.
_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:24 pm)
7 I did not claim to have done an "'objective'
7 critique" of Sam Sloan's Wikipedia biographies.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 Ah! And here it is. Neither does Dr.Blair
7 claim anything! But whatever his help was,
7 it seems, was not objective, and therefore
7 it must have been subjective right? Of
7 course - Dr. Blair is not even saying this
7 much, because his tortured language merely
7 says, that he does not claim to have done -
7 which is not the same as 'did not'. ! )

_
My "help" was neither an "objective" nor a
"subjective" "critique" of Sam Sloan's
"biographies". It was not a "critique" of the
"biographies" at all.

_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (March 16, 2007
7:21 am):
7 Not everything in Sloan's writing is bad, so
7 where is any discrimination? ...
_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:24 pm)
7 If Phil Innes does not feel that Wikipedia is
7 being sufficiently discriminating, he is
7 complaining in the wrong place.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 No answer to any need to be discriminating
7 from Moderator Blair,

_
"... I am not a moderator for Wikipedia
and have made no attempt to be a
moderator for them. ..." - Louis Blair
(Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:04 am)
_
"... If Phil Innes does not feel that
Wikipedia is being sufficiently
discriminating, he is complaining in
the wrong place." - Louis Blair (Fri
Mar 16, 2007 10:24 pm)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 who can't fess up for any of his own
7 'not objective' actions - [see this post]

_
I am not going to "fess up" to actions that
I did not take.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 and where 'help' is a euphemism for
7 'complete destruction',

_
"... If any 'destruction' was done, it
was done by [Wikipedia people] because
they believed it was the appropriate
action indicated by Wikipedia rules. ..."
- Louis Blair (Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:04 am)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:49:54 GMT):

7 and it seems that the new moderators cannot
7 answer the simplest question about their own
7 process of determining the good from the bad.
7 ...

_
I do not know what specific question Phil Innes
is referring to here.

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:34:46 GMT):

7 ... [Sam Sloan] shows no more discrimination
7 than 'helper' Blair.

_
"... I am not a moderator for Wikipedia
and have made no attempt to be a
moderator for them. ..." - Louis Blair
(Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:04 am)
_
"... If Phil Innes does not feel that
Wikipedia is being sufficiently
discriminating, he is complaining in
the wrong place." - Louis Blair (Fri
Mar 16, 2007 10:24 pm)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:34:46 GMT):

7 Neither of you seem to give a damn for
7 what is written about chess personalities -
7 its all or nothing,

_
I have not advocated an "all or nothing" policy.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:34:46 GMT):

7 and more about who wrote what, than what
7 is written ...

_
If Phil Innes feels that Wikipedia does not care
enough about what is written, he is complaining
in the wrong place.

--- In , "ylblai" ylblai@... wrote:

--- In ,
"robmtchl" robmtchl@ (Rob)
wrote (Mon March 19, 2007 9:15 am):

7 ... What it appears to me is this:
7 Someone in a position to exact retribution
7 from an enemy is doing so.
7
7 If you are going to knife someone in the back
7 and are still holding the bloody knife in your
7 hands

_
I did not "knife" anyone "in the back" in order
to "exact retribution".
_
For the Wikipedia people, I put a spotlight on
what Sam Sloan himself had been writing about
his Wikipedia activity. I think that was
the right thing to do. Apparently, the
Wikipedia people themselves came to the
conclusion that some attention and action was
appropriate.

Louis Blair writes about contacting the "Wikipedia People" as though
he was contacting some sort of higher management or the public
prosecutor's office.

What he really did was post to the user pages of some very nasty
people including Bill Brock, a chess player who is on Wikipedia just
so that he can attack me and constantly modify my online biography,
and User:JxG who goes by the moniker JustAnotherGuy but whose real
name is Guy Chapman in England. Guy Chapman is probably the nastiest
administrator on Wikipedia. He brags that he has deleted thousands of
biographies, which is kind of like bragging that he is the Fastest Gun
in the West.

It is perfectly obvious that when Louis Blair posted his Sam Sloan
Announcement to their user pages, he did that to get them to delete
the biographies of these important chess personalities from Wikipedia.

The real issue now is that in full knowledge of this history of Louis
Blair, Bill Goichberg has appointed Blair as a member of the
moderation committee of the USCF Forums. The obvious purpose to this
appointment is to put Blair in the position where he can delete all my
postings to the forums and ultimately suspend or ban me from posting
there.

Sam Sloan