Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 28th 06, 04:22 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blairbot's Farrago

BLAIRBOT'S FARRAGO, AS PREDICTED

Louie Blair has not disappointed. As predicted,
he returned with his usual farrago of quotations.

He snipped what I wrote about Edward Winter's
advocacy. He also snipped what he wrote about "the concern of
many" about the extent of Kasparov's role in BCO. He asked for
proof that he wrote this. When I provided proof, he clammed up.
Apart from Edward Winter, who were the "many." Louis freely
admits that he can name nobody else who was concerned.

I noted that Edward Winter falsely stated that
Garry Kasparov wrote an introduction for BCO. No
comment from Louie.

I noted that Mr. Winter attempted to equate a
normally short "Acknowledgments" section, in which
Kasparov wrote a few lines, with a longer "Introduction,"
though as it happens GM Keene's Introduction to BCO
was rather short. No comment from Louie.

I noted that the evident purpose of trying to
make something of the world champion writing a few
lines of "Acknowledgments" and pretending that it is
an "Introduction" is to suggest that Kasparov took his
duties very lightly re BCO or that those duties were
conflated by others to increase the book sales. No
comment from Louie.

I noted that Edward Winter offered a "reason"
for why he was concerned about BCO authorship, but
after stating that he had this "reason," he never told
us what it was! And, to be q-u-i-t-e sure, no comment
from our Louie.

"Now, then, ladies and gentlemen of the jury,"
one imagines Mr. Winter inveighing, "we come here to
present our reason for being concerned and
'wondering.' But do not expect us to provide you with
that reason. I merely mention that I have the reason."

I noted that Mr. Winter wondered why it was
"pretended" that the British Championsip and Hastings
create such a "colossal amount of opening theory,"
without demonstrating that quoted lines from these
tournaments might have been substituted for quoted
lines from other non-British tournaments. No comment
from Mr. Blair.

His sole gripe seems to be with GM Raymond Keene,
who told this writer and others that Edward Winter claimed
that Batsford Chess Openings was ghosted but that Winter was
refuted Winter when the manuscript in Kasparov's handwriting
was sold at auction. GM Keene, who has had extenstive dealings
with Mr. Winter, made the claim. Not I.

Ah, well, Louie has his quotations, and I will
be deconstructing Mr. Winter's prose. I shall quip,
Louie will snip. Seldom will our twain meet.

  #2   Report Post  
Old February 28th 06, 06:40 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Louis Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blairbot's Farrago

Larry Parr wrote (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800):

[Mr. Blair's] sole gripe seems to be with GM Raymond
Keene, who told this writer and others that Edward
Winter claimed that Batsford Chess Openings was
ghosted ...


_
Strictly speaking, the claim that I "gripe"d about
was:
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)

_
Larry Parr wrote (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800):

GM Keene, who has had extenstive dealings with
Mr. Winter, made the claim. Not I.


_
Larry Parr fails to mention that he posted this claim
in a note with the heading "EDWARD WINTER'S
TRIPE (Continued)". Does Larry Parr claim that
he had no obligation to deal with the issue of
evidence? Did he make any attempt to ask
GM Keene for a quote of the supposed Edward
Winter claim? In the past, in response to
attacks by others, Larry Parr has written things
like:
_
"The man makes a charge without
providing a scintilla of evidence, let
alone proof" - Larry Parr (21 Sep 2005
20:39:02 -0700)
_
and:
_
"[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear." - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)
_
Does Larry Parr think it was acceptable for him
to be a party to that sort of thing?

_
Larry Parr wrote (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800):

Louie Blair ... snipped what I wrote about Edward
Winter's advocacy.


_
"If he remains true to form, Larry Parr will
try to make something of my failure to
comment on C. N. 331, but I did not
endorse C. N. 331 or bring it into the
discussion. Larry Parr DID post the
'ghost' claim" - Louis Blair (27 Feb 2006
16:13:08 -0800)

_
Larry Parr wrote (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800):

Louie Blair ... snipped what he wrote about
"the concern of many" about the extent of
Kasparov's role in BCO.


_
I had no objection to what Larry Parr wrote about
the subject in his 26 Feb 2006 22:16:59 -0800
note. I did not see why I should be obliged
to write any more about it.

_
Larry Parr wrote (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800):

He asked for proof that he wrote this.


_
What I asked for was a quote of the supposed
claim by me that there were many who were
concerned about Kasparov's role in Batsford
Chess Openings when it was published in
1982.

_
Larry Parr wrote (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800):

When I provided proof, he clammed up.


_
I have remarked before that, sometimes, one can
note a tendency for the evidence and the supposed
conclusion to not be in the same place at the same
time. In Larry Parr's 26 Feb 2006 22:16:59 -0800
note, with all the quotes right there, he did not
venture to declare that he had proved anything
specific (about the "many" business) to which I
had any objection. Now, Larry Parr tries to
present a conclusion while leaving out all the
quotes.
_
The truth is that Larry Parr's quote simply
confirmed part of what I had written in
response to jr:
_
"I pointed out that GM Keene had
produced no evidence to contradict
an idea, and subsequently added
that the idea 'strikes me as a good
guess'. That's all." - Louis Blair
(26 Feb 2006 21:24:35 -0800)

_
Larry Parr wrote (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800):

Apart from Edward Winter, who were the "many."
Louis freely admits that he can name nobody
else who was concerned.


_
As I have indicated a number of times over the
past month, I did not claim that there were many.
I indicated that GM Keene had given no evidence
to contradict the idea. That's all. Does Larry
Parr really fail to understand this?
_
"I'm just funnin' 'im." - Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 21:18:52 -0800)

  #3   Report Post  
Old February 28th 06, 08:59 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
jr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blairbot's Farrago

*He snipped what I wrote about Edward Winter's advocacy. He also
snipped what he wrote about "the concern of many" about the extent of
Kasparov's role in BCO. He asked for proof that he wrote this. When I
provided proof, he clammed up. Apart from Edward Winter, who were the
"many." Louis freely admits that he can name nobody else who was
concerned.* (Parr)

Why am I not surprised? In other words, you caught that pompous phony
in an outright lie -- just as I predicted.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017