On Apr 17, 9:35*am, "
wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:24*am, "Chess One" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Apr 17, 6:41 am, The Historian wrote:

On Apr 16, 5:44 pm, SBD wrote:

On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week
I'm
going to tell everybody.

Yes just like you were going to reveal certain emails proving your
various attacks of brain flatulence. Somehow those never surfaced
either.

You're big on threats and weak on execution. After a point, no one
believes the little boy crying wolf, Phil.

Well, if I'm translating the 'English' of P Innes correctly, it seems
he's going to reveal an email HE sent. It's hardly a revelation that
the Brattleboro Bedlam sends crank-mail to the EB and USCF.

My translation of Innes English is that he will reveal a call by
Polgar to remove me from Chess Cafe.

** Actually, I never heard of that 'call' before. So is Spinrad pre-empting
some topic by speculating on it himself? His comprehension abilities seem to
vary according to topic - a common device here on usenet. * *Meanwhile
good old Jerry hob-nobs with someone who accused me of writing filth about
my own family - strangely, those messages were followed by an abuse anon who
only followed those exchanges... * You know, if the hobnail fits...

*If

** If! *) *What do reader's think; will the next comment be a strawman?

*that is what he was saying, it
doesn't make much sense to accuse me of some mysterious conflict of
interest; my supposed interest would be harmed by attacking Polgar.

** Dr Spinrad seems content to speculate on what I will have to say to the
degree that he will take over the prosecution of it himself.

*I
would like to say that I am not accusing Polgar of trying to remove my
column;

** O Good! I am not accusing her of it either. But it is mighty curious that
Jerry Spinrad brought it up, since I didn't.

** Now... since none of us seem to be bring that up, is there any new
business here?

*since Phil as has been pointed out seems constitutionally
incapable of saying anything clearly, it is hard to know how to
interpret his statements. The amusing thing is that he called for me
to reveal some secret incriminating information, when I have no
information which is not known to the entire group.

** The open 'secret' as Jerry Spinrad would have it, is that he is not a
disinterested party in the affaire-Polgar, but that I will reveal it? Is
that what he is saying? I merely asked that of Hanken or Spinrad, or of any
party at all, that they /declare/ their interest in either USCF politics, or
in its trading activities, especially when it concerns highly contentious
issues to do with other people's children, which is a normal standard among
real journalists. That is what it is, and requires no speculary 'ifs' as if
to lampoon people asking after public standards of DECENCY.

**Now while Jerry Spinrad accuses me of being unclear, what exactly has he
exhibited in this message other than 'ifs'? I note that he does not quote me
on any topic at all, and paraphrastically inserts terms like
'incriminating'!

* * INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!

**But since he in effect is content to prosecute himself, let him continue
in his own clear English to actually say something clearly and why
incriminating came to his mind, when the context of Polgar's request was to
do with decent public expression surrounding United States Chess Federation,
by those in office, formally linked with it, who receive payment and other
favours resulting from their relations with it.

** If Doctor Spinrad cannot understand either the context, nor his own part
in it, that, I put to anyone's candid appreciation, is not a fault resting
on my doorstep.

I cannot understand either the context, nor my own part in it. I put
to anyone's candid appreciation, it is a fault resting on your
doorstop.

I am a disinterested party in the affair. I am a USCF member, and have
a column on Chess Cafe. Spit out whatever you are trying to imply in
calling me an interested party.

Jerry Spinrad





Phil Innes

Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps you are being unfairly condemned by guilt by association? I
really don't know. Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:45:16 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

Perhaps you are being unfairly condemned by guilt by association? I
really don't know. Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.


Doesn't Polgar have her own column at Chess Cafe?

On Apr 17, 12:10*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:45:16 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

Perhaps you are being unfairly condemned by guilt by association? I
really don't know. Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.

Doesn't Polgar have her own column at Chess Cafe?

I don't know.

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

Perhaps you are being unfairly condemned by guilt by association? I
really don't know. Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.

Doesn't Polgar have her own column at Chess Cafe?

I don't know.


Not be a hard-ass or anything, Rob, but if you don't know who the
columnists at Chess Cafe actually are, how can you make pronouncements
on their collective tendency, such as " Chess Cafe' writers have a
collective tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated
even in the slightest with Chessville."

BTW: http://www.chesscafe.com/polgar/polgar.htm

On Apr 17, 10:45*am, Rob wrote:

Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.

Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written here,
and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
*_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??

Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
confirm he

http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/ar...r%20on%20Chess

Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
writer, has attacked herself?

As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much
as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightest
with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
result.
As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt
it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support
your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
any specifics at all.

This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attacking
things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote
but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
all.

On Apr 17, 8:56 am, "Chess One" wrote:

You have amply demonstrated an inability to even agree on commonly used
terms - yet I should apply for your understanding?

No I haven't - you are the one with a problem with the proper use of
language..

I do want to know about your supposed service on a state board
responsible for child welfare. It is germane to the issue.

Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:45:16 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

Perhaps you are being unfairly condemned by guilt by association? I
really don't know. Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.


Doesn't Polgar have her own column at Chess Cafe?

Yes.

On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, wrote:
On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob wrote:



Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.

Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written here,
and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
*_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??

Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
confirm he

http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/ar...Polgar%20on%20...

Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
writer, has attacked herself?

As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much
as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightest
with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
result.
As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt
it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support
your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
any specifics at all.

This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attacking
things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote
but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
all.

Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down. You all knew
what was ment. But, true to form you attacked not the intent but
rather the form. Congratulations on remaining consistent.

On Apr 18, 7:22*am, Rob wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, wrote:





On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob wrote:

Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.

* Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written here,
and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
*_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??

* Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
confirm he

*http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/ar...Polgar%20on%20....

* Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
writer, has attacked herself?

* As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much
as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
* And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightest
with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
result.
* As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt
it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support
your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
any specifics at all.

* This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attacking
things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote
but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
all.

Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.

Practically narrows it out of existence.

You all knew
what was ment. [sic]

Really? No, Rob, we only know what you say, which was "Chess Cafe'
writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville."

"Collective tendency" means that a majority of the group exhibit the
behavior. You have not named even one who does so.
And who are these "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on RGC"?
If we include myself, even though I no longer write anything for
ChessCafe, how many is that? I'd say two: Jeremy Spinrad and me. Since
I seldom say much of anything about Susan Polgar, and have never even
bothered to disagree with her, let alone
attack her in writing, that leaves just one possible person: Spinrad.
Temporarily accepting, just for the sake of argument, that Spinrad
may have attacked Polgar (and I really don't know if he has or not),
that leaves a total of one.

Now Rob, please explain to us how we get a "collective tendency"
from just one person?

But, true to form you attacked not the intent but
rather the form.

No, Rob, I pointed out that your statement was completely false, and
that you had not the slightest knowledge of what you were talking
about. You didn't even know that Polgar herself has been a regular
ChessCafe columnist for nearly six years.

On Apr 18, 6:22 am, Rob wrote:


Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down. You all knew
what was ment. But, true to form you attacked not the intent but
rather the form. Congratulations on remaining consistent.

I don't think so Rob. It was a pretty sweeping statement, and I took
it at face value. Then I realized what you meant; however, could you
provide some examples of how CC writers who post on rgc "collectively"
attack Polgar and Truong? I am not sure they even do so singularly to
any degree; in fact, I don't know of any regular CC writers who even
post here.