A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hanke vs. Blair, round 372



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 12th 03, 09:47 PM
Louis Blair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hanke vs. Blair, round 372

NoMoreChess now writes (05 Jul 2003 04:38:29 GMT):
Regardless, the issue I raised was: does Mr. Blair realize
that he appears to be *obsessed* with attacking Mr. Hanke?
Obsessed, the same way a stalker is. The same way Fischer
was with chess, and now is with regard to the Jews. That
kind of obsessed. It was a valid question, which has clearly
been ducked. Quack, quack.


I wrote (Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:03:43 -0500):
I have dealt with this issue many times, including just yesterday.

"Surely Timothy Hanke does not believe that commenting on
one person obliges one to comment on all others. Does
Timothy Hanke expect us to believe that HE lives by such
a principle?" - Louis Blair (2003-01-29 17:37:24 PST)

"I write about Timothy Hanke because I think I can point out
things that people may not have noticed. I do not have such a
belief with regard to Sam Sloan." - Louis Blair (2003-03-28
12:30:59 PST)

"Posting notes about Timothy Hanke has proven to take
enough time already. I am not going to get into discussions
of all of the candidates." - Louis Blair (2003-03-28 15:31:34
PST)

"Timothy Hanke keeps on posting notes that seem to me to
warrant comment - comment that others do not make."
- Louis Blair (2003-03-31 20:36:53 PST)


Vince Hart wrote (7 Jul 2003 14:09:41 -0700):
I have to say Louis that the foregoing strikes me as a rather
vague explanation given the extraordinary effort that you seem
devote to this project.


I wrote (Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:08:29 -0500):
I have to say that Vince Hart's comment strikes me as rather
vague about what additional information he expects me to provide.


Vince Hart now writes (8 Jul 2003 05:47:34 -0700):

I am sufficiently familiar with your posting style Louis
that I don't expect you to provide any additional information
and I can't very well be specific about your motivation since
I don't know what it is.


_
There is a difference between specific questions and specific
answers. I did not say anything about Vince Hart providing
specific answers (in this discussion).


Vince Hart wrote (7 Jul 2003 14:09:41 -0700):
It seems to me to be simply a description of what you are
doing while I think what people are asking about is your
motivation.


I wrote (Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:08:29 -0500):
"Timothy Hanke keeps on posting notes that seem to me to
warrant comment - comment that others do not make."
- Louis Blair (2003-03-31 20:36:53 PST)



Vince Hart now writes (8 Jul 2003 05:47:34 -0700):

This seems to be somewhat inaccurate as well as vague
since much of the time you do not comment on the substance
of Hanke's post at all preferring instead to simply quote
some other post of his.


_
I did not write that I necessarily make the comment. In
some cases, it seems to me that providing the information
is sufficient to make the point.


  #2  
Old July 12th 03, 09:48 PM
Louis Blair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hanke vs. Blair, round 372

I wrote (Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:50:33 -0500):
From my Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:07:16 -0500 note:

"'It all started in a deal gone sour. You see, Mr.
Hanke was trying to write a book or some chess
literature. He was trying to employ Dr. Blair , due
to his vast knowledge of chess history, in the
preparation of the article. I didn't know what
happened next, then I saw a post by Mr. Hanke
to the effect that Dr. Blair is "boring". All hell
broke lose after that.' - Lance Smith (4 Jul 2003
08:04:07 -0700)
...
Hostilities between me and Hanke did not start with the
Trivia game incident. There was no 'deal' and no 'article'.
...
The 'boring' quote is more than two months after the trivia
game incident, and certainly not connected to the start of
hostilities between Timothy Hanke and me. By 2003-04-03,
Timothy Hanke had already posted such comments as:

'Blair is the moral equivalent of an Iraqi militia member.'
- Timothy Hanke (2003-03-30 08:52:43 PST)"



Lance Smith now writes (8 Jul 2003 06:56:36 -0700):

Now I understand, the hostilities started during the Iraqi war.


_
Hostilities between Timothy Hanke and me did not start with
the Iraqi war. To give just one example, well before the Iraqi
war, Timothy Hanke, as I mentioned, had posted:

"... the dim-witted Louis Blair ..." - Timothy Hanke
(2002-11-24 13:01:26 PST)


Lance Smith now writes (8 Jul 2003 06:56:36 -0700):

But of course, you have all the reasons to prove to himself
that you are not what he told you.

Why didn't you accept the Trivia Game Deal? It sounds to
me like it's a noble undertaking.


_
No "Deal" was discussed. Also, as I wrote before,

"I did not feel that I had the time to examine large numbers
of game questions. I also did not think that I could be
helpful on such things as box design." - Louis Blair
(Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:55:43 -0500)


  #3  
Old July 13th 03, 02:57 PM
Vince Hart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hanke vs. Blair, round 372

Louis Blair wrote in message ...
NoMoreChess now writes (05 Jul 2003 04:38:29 GMT):
Regardless, the issue I raised was: does Mr. Blair realize
that he appears to be *obsessed* with attacking Mr. Hanke?
Obsessed, the same way a stalker is. The same way Fischer
was with chess, and now is with regard to the Jews. That
kind of obsessed. It was a valid question, which has clearly
been ducked. Quack, quack.


I wrote (Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:03:43 -0500):
I have dealt with this issue many times, including just yesterday.

"Surely Timothy Hanke does not believe that commenting on
one person obliges one to comment on all others. Does
Timothy Hanke expect us to believe that HE lives by such
a principle?" - Louis Blair (2003-01-29 17:37:24 PST)

"I write about Timothy Hanke because I think I can point out
things that people may not have noticed. I do not have such a
belief with regard to Sam Sloan." - Louis Blair (2003-03-28
12:30:59 PST)

"Posting notes about Timothy Hanke has proven to take
enough time already. I am not going to get into discussions
of all of the candidates." - Louis Blair (2003-03-28 15:31:34
PST)

"Timothy Hanke keeps on posting notes that seem to me to
warrant comment - comment that others do not make."
- Louis Blair (2003-03-31 20:36:53 PST)


Vince Hart wrote (7 Jul 2003 14:09:41 -0700):
I have to say Louis that the foregoing strikes me as a rather
vague explanation given the extraordinary effort that you seem
devote to this project.


I wrote (Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:08:29 -0500):
I have to say that Vince Hart's comment strikes me as rather
vague about what additional information he expects me to provide.


Vince Hart now writes (8 Jul 2003 05:47:34 -0700):

I am sufficiently familiar with your posting style Louis
that I don't expect you to provide any additional information
and I can't very well be specific about your motivation since
I don't know what it is.


_
There is a difference between specific questions and specific
answers. I did not say anything about Vince Hart providing
specific answers (in this discussion).


Vince Hart wrote (7 Jul 2003 14:09:41 -0700):
It seems to me to be simply a description of what you are
doing while I think what people are asking about is your
motivation.


I wrote (Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:08:29 -0500):
"Timothy Hanke keeps on posting notes that seem to me to
warrant comment - comment that others do not make."
- Louis Blair (2003-03-31 20:36:53 PST)



Vince Hart now writes (8 Jul 2003 05:47:34 -0700):

This seems to be somewhat inaccurate as well as vague
since much of the time you do not comment on the substance
of Hanke's post at all preferring instead to simply quote
some other post of his.


_
I did not write that I necessarily make the comment. In
some cases, it seems to me that providing the information
is sufficient to make the point.


I wish Louis would spend as much time explaining what he did write as
he does expaining what he did not write. I suppose I might eventually
figure out what he did intend to say by process of elimination.

Vince Hart
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why is ChessCafe running the USCF book/equipment sales??? Doctor Who rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 32 April 1st 04 06:04 PM
Tournament round generator out there for chess players? Alberich rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 2 November 21st 03 11:41 PM
please analyze (round 6; 4 hour game) Hans Meier rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 5 October 5th 03 08:55 PM
Nick Bourbaki's many lies Nick rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 30 July 30th 03 06:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.