Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 10th 06, 11:54 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default Silly

On, unfortunately rare, occasions when strong
chess players post on rgc*, they do not need
to boast of their playing strength because one
hand hand they have their confidence, and on
the other hand other rgc* participants know it
without being told so. Many of us are initerested
in chess, including chess events, so we know
who is who.

For a similar reason it makes no sense to
falsely claim the chess strength on rgc*
because once again we know or we can easily
check. The unimportant exception is the
case of anonymous losers and trollers. Let
them run their mouth, we don't care.

The regulars on rgc* know each other for years.
Some of us are reasonably initelligent and we
know that some others are reasonably initelligent
too. Furhtermore, we post on rgc* not to impress
anybody with our chess strength but for a variety
of other reasons, mainly for the pleasure and
satisfaction of sharing our common hobby--chess
(including chess politics, history and trivia).

What's my point?

Please, stop the silling attacks against TK's
casual true mentioning of his higher than beginner
chess skill. He did it just to brush away a stupid
attack, that's all. There is no reason to get so
excited about the lack of pedantic precision of
his response because it didn't matter then, it
does not matter now. Using it as a BIG argument
against his integrity and similar is silly and even
worse (as a war method it is dirty). If you want so
bad to make TK look bad then find something REAL.
The way it is, those who treat so seriously
a casual, marginal statement--with a microscoping
precision--look bad THEMSELVES.

Anybody who is intelligent enough can see
that TK is intelligent enough not to attempt
to impress rgc* falsely with his rating--what for??!!!!

I would much prefer that participants who
have made positive contributions to rgc*
(and even to the chess outside rgc*) would
stop acting negative, would stop trying to
destroy others who have positive contributions.

I must add that the situation is not symmetric.
It is the rather quiet and peaceful rgc[mp] chess
historians (or hobbysts-historians) who are attacked
viciously and irationally by an entire array of characters.
This array in addition to complete anonymous losers
and trolls, as well as some truly dishonest guys,
unfortunately includes also participants who otherwise
deserve respect and sympathy--but not when they
make false accusations and play dirty.

Regards,

Wlod

  #2   Report Post  
Old June 11th 06, 10:02 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Silly

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:

What's my point?

Please, stop the silling attacks against TK's
casual true mentioning of his higher than beginner
chess skill. He did it just to brush away a stupid
attack, that's all. There is no reason to get so
excited about the lack of pedantic precision of
his response because it didn't matter then, it
does not matter now. Using it as a BIG argument
against his integrity and similar is silly and even
worse (as a war method it is dirty). If you want so
bad to make TK look bad then find something REAL.
The way it is, those who treat so seriously
a casual, marginal statement--with a microscoping
precision--look bad THEMSELVES.

Anybody who is intelligent enough can see
that TK is intelligent enough not to attempt
to impress rgc* falsely with his rating--what for??!!!!

Regards,

Wlod


You apparently have not been following these discussions closely.

Taylor Kingston attacks us all the time. Virtually every posting he
makes involves an attack on somebody. We counter-attack him because he
always attacks us.

His main targets for attack are Raymond Keene, Larry Evans and Eric
Schiller, who happen to be the most prolific and widely published chess
authors in the world.

Kingston also attacks me and Larry Parr as a sideline, but only because
we defend the three authors above. If we did not defend the people who
Taylor Kingston is attacking he would not bother with us.

For example, when Taylor Kingston was the moderator of the Chess Cafe
forums, he published a personal attack on me. I wrote a response and
sent it to Chess Cafe not realizing that Taylor Kingston was the
moderator.

Naturally, Taylor Kingston blocked my response so the attack on me
stood and is still there in the archives with no response.

Just do a Google search and see how many dozens of times Taylor
Kingston has posted about the 1987 error made by Schiller where he
wrote that Westerinen had written a book about the Nimzovitch Defense,
whereas he had actually written a book about the Nimzo-Indian Defense.

Taylor Kingston is a complete nobody in chess. Nobody would care about
him, nobody would bother with him, except for his hundreds indeed
thousands of attacks on prominent chess personalities. If he would stop
attacking us, we would not be attacking him any more.

Sam Sloan

  #3   Report Post  
Old June 11th 06, 10:29 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default Silly

samsloan wrote:

Taylor Kingston is a complete nobody in chess. Nobody would care about
him, nobody would bother with him, except for his hundreds indeed
thousands of attacks on prominent chess personalities. If he would stop
attacking us, we would not be attacking him any more.

Sam Sloan


Like in a courtroom, please, one case at the time.

One marginal statement by Taylor, where precision was
of no importance, seems to be for you a good enough
excuse to use it and abuse it in your "war" against
Taylor. You seem to subscribe to the notion that
everything goes in a "war". My own ethical code is drastically
different from yours.

It is important to address one issue at the time
because I am not inclined to fight your hydra of lies
--by the time I clear one of them, you are very capable
to counter with ten new lies. Thus once again, please,
one issue at the time:

As far as I am concerned you have already
confirmed my opinion that the attacks on
Taylor, on the account of his casual rating
statement, were not made in good faith.

Regards,

Wlod

PS. What's going on with you? You used to be
one of those who used to report on disloyal
FIDE activities of Don Schultz (or whatever his face)
-- disloyal to the US chess players and American
ideals. These days you are assuming all kind
of intimate positions in his bed (it's a political
metaphor, of course).

  #4   Report Post  
Old June 11th 06, 04:33 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,931
Default Silly


samsloan wrote:

For example, when Taylor Kingston was the moderator of the Chess Cafe
forums, he published a personal attack on me. I wrote a response and
sent it to Chess Cafe not realizing that Taylor Kingston was the
moderator.
Naturally, Taylor Kingston blocked my response so the attack on me
stood and is still there in the archives with no response.


Sam seems to be writing from his alternate universe again. A few
facts in reply:

1. For a few years, ChessCafe did have a Bulletin Board, but I was
never its moderator, nor was I ever the moderator of any other online
forum.
2. In my posts to the Bulletin Board, I do not recall ever even
mentioning Sloan, let alone attacking him personally.
3. I never saw any response by Sloan to this imaginary attack, and so
could have made no effort to block it.
4. Bulletin Board posts are not archived. Therefore if this imaginary
attack did exist, it would not be "still there in the archives."

Except for the fact that the CCBB did exist, Sam seems to have made
up this whole story. Of course, if he is right, he can easily prove me
wrong by providing a link to this alleged attack in the archives of
www.chesscafe.com.

Taylor Kingston is a complete nobody in chess.


Well now, there our Sammy may be right about something!

By the way, Wlod, thanks for your support.

  #5   Report Post  
Old June 12th 06, 03:43 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 195
Default Silly


"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)" wrote in message
ups.com...
On, unfortunately rare, occasions when strong
chess players post on rgc*, they do not need
to boast of their playing strength because one
hand hand they have their confidence, and on
the other hand other rgc* participants know it
without being told so. Many of us are initerested
in chess, including chess events, so we know
who is who.

For a similar reason it makes no sense to
falsely claim the chess strength on rgc*
because once again we know or we can easily
check. The unimportant exception is the
case of anonymous losers and trollers. Let
them run their mouth, we don't care.

The regulars on rgc* know each other for years.
Some of us are reasonably initelligent and we
know that some others are reasonably initelligent
too. Furhtermore, we post on rgc* not to impress
anybody with our chess strength but for a variety
of other reasons, mainly for the pleasure and
satisfaction of sharing our common hobby--chess
(including chess politics, history and trivia).

What's my point?

Please, stop the silling attacks against TK's
casual true mentioning of his higher than beginner
chess skill. He did it just to brush away a stupid
attack, that's all. There is no reason to get so
excited about the lack of pedantic precision of
his response because it didn't matter then, it
does not matter now. Using it as a BIG argument
against his integrity and similar is silly and even
worse (as a war method it is dirty). If you want so
bad to make TK look bad then find something REAL.
The way it is, those who treat so seriously
a casual, marginal statement--with a microscoping
precision--look bad THEMSELVES.

Anybody who is intelligent enough can see
that TK is intelligent enough not to attempt
to impress rgc* falsely with his rating--what for??!!!!

I would much prefer that participants who
have made positive contributions to rgc*
(and even to the chess outside rgc*) would
stop acting negative, would stop trying to
destroy others who have positive contributions.

I must add that the situation is not symmetric.
It is the rather quiet and peaceful rgc[mp] chess
historians (or hobbysts-historians) who are attacked
viciously and irationally by an entire array of characters.
This array in addition to complete anonymous losers
and trolls, as well as some truly dishonest guys,
unfortunately includes also participants who otherwise
deserve respect and sympathy--but not when they
make false accusations and play dirty.



Thank you for this much-needed post. It won't do any good, but I still say
thank you.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

Regards,

Wlod



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 02:33 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