NEVER YES, NEVER NO

Louie Blair can never seem to answer a simple question with yes or no.

The Russian dialectic is not yes or no but rather "it is possible" or
"it is not altogether impossible." -- GM Larry Evans in THIS CRAZY
WORLD OF CHESS (page 171) about his visit to the USSR with the
American chess team in 1955.


Louis Blair wrote:
samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:55:39 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7
7 Answer that question "yes" or "no".
7
7 We will await your answers.

_
Why are we seeing questions when be should seeing an
identification of specific evidence? Is samsloan
) (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154)
retracting the previous claims? If so, why isn't there an apology?
If not, why isn't there evidence?
_
"...
After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis
Blair wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
12:01:27 -0800 (PST)
_
_
"...
The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair
wrote messages to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia
administrators complaining about my biographies of Ali
Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha
and Geoffrey Borg ...
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
22:29:58 -0800 (PST))
_
_
"...
... on March 19, 2006, Phr (Paul Rubin) and Louis
Blair tried to have the biography of Bessel Kok deleted.
See:
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
09:37:03 -0800 (PST))
_
_
"...
It is possible to go back to March 2006 and see Louis
Blair asking User:JzG to take a look at those five
biographies. However, I do not know how to do this."
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
09:37:03 -0800 (PST))

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
...
samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:55:39 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7
7 Answer that question "yes" or "no".
7
7 We will await your answers.

_
Why are we seeing questions when be should seeing an
identification of specific evidence?

That is an extraordinary reply! In these circumstances it is unclear what
Dr. Blair is saying he did or not do. That is why the question exists. To
ask for 'evidence' so that honest-Louie can further obfusticate whatever he
did is an absurdity!

Louis Blair even CUT the question(s) he is being asked - just to confuse the
issue more, since which questions does he ask for evidence thereof?

The evidence I know is of his own writing on this subject, the 30,000 words
on the Fide-Yahoo group. It seems to me from that writing that Louis Blair
did conduct various activities with Wikipedia, and I draw my conclusions
about his 'action'.

If Dr. Blair cannot even allow any question put to him to stand, but instead
asks questions himself about 'proof', there it is! That is primary
obfustication to a simple direct inquiry - and why would anyone do that?

ROFL! The funny thing about this is that I exited the 'debate' on Fide-Chess
with the //prediction// that Louis Blair would bring the entire USCF Forum
to its knees, all by himself - and /how/ they deserved each other!

Phil Innes

Is samsloan
) (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154)
retracting the previous claims? If so, why isn't there an apology?
If not, why isn't there evidence?
_
"...
After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis
Blair wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
12:01:27 -0800 (PST)
_
_
"...
The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair
wrote messages to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia
administrators complaining about my biographies of Ali
Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha
and Geoffrey Borg ...
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
22:29:58 -0800 (PST))
_
_
"...
... on March 19, 2006, Phr (Paul Rubin) and Louis
Blair tried to have the biography of Bessel Kok deleted.
See:
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
09:37:03 -0800 (PST))
_
_
"...
It is possible to go back to March 2006 and see Louis
Blair asking User:JzG to take a look at those five
biographies. However, I do not know how to do this."
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
09:37:03 -0800 (PST))

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 7:07 pm, " wrote:
NEVER YES, NEVER NO

Louie Blair can never seem to answer a simple question with yes or no.

_
Does Larry Parr think that Sam Sloan specifically identify
what evidence he has to support the charges that he has
posted? (That is a yes or no question.)

Does Larry Parr think that by answering the questions which Louis Blair
already cut, with this new question about proof, will obtain a yes or no
answer from Louis Blair, who by this Blairian-means can still answer with a
further 30,000 words [plus the originals!] which not even St. Anthony,
supported by a small squadron of learned nuns, the entire Greek pantheon,
nor Alexander himself could unravel?

In his honor we should rename this form of dialog; the Blairian-knot.

Phil Innes

THE BLAIRIAN-KNOT

Louie will answer a question with a question, but he won't answer the
question. He even will CUT the question from his question.

And so it goes.

Chess One wrote:
"Louis Blair" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 7:07 pm, " wrote:
NEVER YES, NEVER NO

Louie Blair can never seem to answer a simple question with yes or no.

_
Does Larry Parr think that Sam Sloan specifically identify
what evidence he has to support the charges that he has
posted? (That is a yes or no question.)

Does Larry Parr think that by answering the questions which Louis Blair
already cut, with this new question about proof, will obtain a yes or no
answer from Louis Blair, who by this Blairian-means can still answer with a
further 30,000 words [plus the originals!] which not even St. Anthony,
supported by a small squadron of learned nuns, the entire Greek pantheon,
nor Alexander himself could unravel?

In his honor we should rename this form of dialog; the Blairian-knot.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Louis Blair" wrote in message
...
samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:55:39 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7
7 Answer that question "yes" or "no".
7
7 We will await your answers.

_
Why are we seeing questions when be should seeing an
identification of specific evidence?

That is an extraordinary reply! In these circumstances it is unclear what
Dr. Blair is saying he did or not do.


Having reached the first error in Phil's post, we can stop reading.

This is not "extraordinary" at all; this is the absolute gold standard
of Louis Blair's posts here. Nothing at all extraordinary about it!


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

[much ad hom. deleted]


In Wales they take to Men-of Harlech - but in Scotland its the whiskey and
lemon, and as you recover, gradually ease off the lemon.

As if Irish whiskey could even begin to compare
to home-brew corn still output over here! Ever
heard of a fellow named Jack Daniels?


Unfortunately, my
chess play has fallen off a cliff. I can barely
see the board, and this would probably be a
perfect time for the ratpack to challenge for
another grudge match, even if SS is the best
you can offer. Heck, maybe even Rob the
robber Mitchell can beat me right now... .

He is busy selling time-shares on Io, a very respectable little moon of
Jupiter to raise money to buy a couple of small Caribbean Islands and create
FantasyChessIsland.com which will have its own HD TV channel. I believe he
will call the Io joint, Lex-ville or Lex City, so the golf course will be
the Lex City Links, et ca.

Again, more poor Latin. Nearly-Innes lucked into
the correct spelling of "et", meaning "and", yet
whiffed on "cetera" by confounding the abreviation
"ca." which of course stands for california (or
maybe "circa" (around). Generally speaking, the
normal abbreviation for "et cetera" is given as "etc.",
as in Yul Brenner's famous line from The King and I:
"Et cetera, et cetera, etc."

These elementary errors are tell-tale signs of a
dire weakness in the dead languages area. The truth
is, no matter how well you may know still-spoken
languages like figurine algebraic or Chinese, a grasp
of the morbid and forgotten can widen one's overall
perspective; this is why I still make a point to study
British English and Owen's Defense-- for perspective.


Some of my comments did not pertain, as assummed
by nearly-Innes, to everything ever written here under
any thread on the matter of SS vs. LB; to the contrary,
I expect at least a brief summary of positions in any
newly-created thread on such matters, since only the
deeply-wounded parties are wont to recall every sordid
detail of life-histories betwixt the Hatfields and MacCoys.

You certainly must realize that there are newbies
reading these newsgroups; that they are not merely
the playground of long-time flame-warriors, or nutters.
Obviously, the accusation: "what is it you did do,
Loueiee?" means nothing whatever to a newbie, apart
from just what it says (and the proof of poor spelling
skills). I just want to raise the bar off the ground; I'm
not aiming for perfection here... .


hep blot

On Jan 8, 6:55 pm, samsloan wrote:
Let's make it simple, Mr. Blair:

1. Did you or did you not write postings to 19 Wikipedia
administrators or editors pointing out that I had reinstated
biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg?

Answer that question "yes" or "no".

In other words, stop playing games with swords.

2. Is it not a fact that promptly after you wrote these 19
administrators, User:JzG "salted the earth" with respect to the
biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg, meaning that
no biography of those persons can ever be posted to Wikipedia again?

Answer "yes" or "no".

3. Is it not a fact that Bill Goichberg rewarded you for this deed by
appointing you as a member of the Forum Oversight Committee thereby
giving you the power to remove postings by Sam Sloan from the USCF
Issues Forum?

Answer that question "yes" or "no".

We will await your answers.


This posting makes it clear that SS has no clue what
he is talking about.

AFTER having already issued accusations, he now
"inquires" whether or not they were justified! It is as
though the man were traveling in time, and like Merlin
the wizard, he knows nothing of the past, yet he can
"see" crimes from the future, or at least he thinks he
can.

Traditionally, the accusation comes after-the-fact,
and the accused is never asked to testify against
himself. Indeed, the compilation of evidence of the
crime is the job of the accuser. In this "case", I get
the sense of a paranoid nutter who accuses people
of conspiring against him, hoping they will "confess"
and thereby justify his irrational fears.

Nearly-an-IM Innes has given his bizarre version of
the story, claiming that SS wrote four perfectly good
biographies which were then maliciously deleted by
LB et al. To this I can only respond: "why does
Wikipedia allow such malicious deletions?" I ask
this because it makes no sense for Mr. Sloan's vast
creative work to be maliciously deleted, yet that is
precisely what he and his few supporters maintain.
The plot has Wiki as the setting, SS as hero and
artist, with LB as evil villain? Who would pay to see
such lunacy? Even if Kurt Russel can be snagged
to play Sam Sloan's character, you would need an
acid-scarred, malformed dwarf with a German or
Russian accent for the part of Louis Blair. I say it
won't fly-- not unless you can get Halle Barry or
someone like that to play the love interest of both
SS and LB.


-- take three

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

[much ad hom. deleted]

or an equation met!

and on to pro hominem,

In Wales they take to Men-of Harlech - but in Scotland its the whiskey
and
lemon, and as you recover, gradually ease off the lemon.

As if Irish whiskey could even begin to compare
to home-brew corn still output over here! Ever
heard of a fellow named Jack Daniels?

I've tried. Its like maidens water.

The proper whiskey runs through 30 miles of bracken-bog with hopefully and
least one decaying sheep in it, then passes by numerous dungyards, before
crossing a burnt heather-moor.

Jack Daniels tastes like it ran through Detroit.

---
Again, more poor Latin. Nearly-Innes lucked into
the correct spelling of "et", meaning "and", yet
whiffed on "cetera" by confounding the abreviation
"ca." which of course stands for california (or
maybe "circa" (around). Generally speaking, the
normal abbreviation for "et cetera" is given as "etc.",

Nevermind the fine-point differences there - etc being itself an abbreviated
form of the abbreviation, et ca, for people who find 4 letters a labor; and
how fortunate I did not say 'et alii' which as ani fule no, is abbreviated
to et al. whose meaning is 'and others' [masc.] other women being et aliae.

HERE'S THE GIST

Perhaps someone will now write in to tell us that, in their language the
chess pieces themselves are altogether masculine, neuter, or feminine - or,
given any group of pieces containing one masculine piece, they are all
masculine, but if the queen alone is referenced, she is permitted to be
feminine.

Indeed, I wonder if there are male pieces and female pieces, and also
neutral ones? In English we must make do with the King being masculine, the
Queen being feminine - the bishops, knights and rooks being don't-knows.

But what of the pawns? They are so often portrayed as little [male]
soldiers - but on the cusp of the seventh rank can undergo a gender change
to become wimmin!

NO WIMMINS

The first serious chess historian of the modern game, a Gent named Hyde, who
later helped found the Royal Society - actually thought this gender changing
ridiculous! Immoral! Insufferable! - and sought to ban the Queen!

They should all be blokes, [I paraphrase] saith he, since chess is a war
game and women have no part in it!

Dammit! He continued, soon we will see a WGM named Martha Stewart, or
something, who will be out there stencilling the chess board with pretty
flower patterns! Of course, there are pretty flowers on a battle field,
but...

and in his confusion abandoned his metaphor completely, and so the Queen
survived, checking happily into the future.

Isn't this a lovely story for the New Year?

----

Some of my comments did not pertain, as assummed
by nearly-Innes, to everything ever written here under
any thread on the matter of SS vs. LB; to the contrary,
I expect at least a brief summary of positions in any
newly-created thread on such matters, since only the
deeply-wounded parties are wont to recall every sordid
detail of life-histories betwixt the Hatfields and MacCoys.

showing away with the smoothing iron! look at this - he can bleedin rite if
he wunts two!

You certainly must realize that there are newbies
reading these newsgroups; that they are not merely
the playground of long-time flame-warriors, or nutters.

a call for sobriety, and on topical meditations not medications - no
penances yet, except for the sobriety

Obviously, the accusation: "what is it you did do,
Loueiee?" means nothing whatever to a newbie, apart
from just what it says (and the proof of poor spelling
skills). I just want to raise the bar off the ground; I'm
not aiming for perfection here... .

should one hurdle the bar or do that other thing underneath it, and hope
your pants don't split?

Phil Innes


hep blot

On Jan 10, 9:21 am, "Chess One" wrote:

As if Irish whiskey could even begin to compare
to home-brew corn still output over here! Ever
heard of a fellow named Jack Daniels?

I've tried. Its like maidens water.

The proper whiskey runs through 30 miles of bracken-bog with hopefully and
least one decaying sheep in it, then passes by numerous dungyards, before
crossing a burnt heather-moor.

Jack Daniels tastes like it ran through Detroit.

Credit where credit is due. Between this quip and his brilliant
response to JKH about the CJA I have been surprised at the
intelligence Mr. Innes has shown this morning. True, his post on drug
testing was his usual 'standard', but that might have been his 'before
coffee' posting.

Eric Johnson, former Acting USCF Executive Director, has posted an
excellent critique on Louis Blair.

Since Eric Johnson never posts here, I will post it for him:

Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia

In a message dated 1/8/2008 6:57:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

Let's make it simple, Mr. Blair:

1. Did you or did you not write postings to 19 Wikipedia
administrators or editors pointing out that I had reinstated
biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg?

Answer that question "yes" or "no".


Sam, it is hopeless with Mr. Blair. He likes to argue that all he
does is make the facts known to the decision-makers -- he doesn't ask
them to do anything.

Thus, if he writes to a Wikipedia official and points out things that
would/could/should get a listing deleted -- all he says he is doing is
making Wikipedia "aware" of the situation. When Wikipedia takes the
obvious step, Mr. Blair thinks he has clean hands.

Sort of like saying "all I did was yell fire -- I didn't ask anyone to
stampede the door -- that was their own decision."

Causal chains of behavior have no impact on Mr. Blair.

ECJ