| |
Main
Date: 10 Jun 2006 20:52:39
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 17:54:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
>
> I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?
> --
> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
> Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
What was he like?
Was he strong, brave and attractive to women?
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 17:51:35
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Nick wrote:
> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> > "Nick" <[email protected]> writes:
> > > Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> > >> "Nick" <[email protected]> writes:
> > >> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >> >> Nick wrote:
> > >> >> > I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So do most of us here. So why bother telling us about
> > >> >> some stupid movie we can look up if we want?
> > >> >
> > >> > In his post creating this thread, Kenneth Sloan mentioned
> > >> > that a character named 'Sam Sloan' appeared in a recent film.
> > >>
> > >> False.
> > >
> > > In his post creating this thread, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> > >
> > > "Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
> > > I wonder if anyone else noticed the 'Sam Sloan' character?"
> > > --Kenneth Sloan
> > >
> > > As far as I know, 'X3: The Last Stand' refers to the
> > > 2006 film described in the Internet Movie Database
> > > as 'X-Men: The Last Stand'. I have not seen this film,
> > > but I believe that it's accurate for me to describe it as
> > > 'a recent film', which is what I did.
> > >
> > > Strictly speaking, Kenneth Sloan wrote a question,
> > > "I wonder if anyone else noticed the 'Sam Sloan'
> > > character?", implying that the 'Sam Sloan' character
> > > appeared in the film that he had just watched.
> > >
> > > Again, I have not seen this film, and so I assumed
> > > that "the 'Sam Sloan' character" mentioned by
> > > Kenneth Sloan was named 'Sam Sloan'.
> >
> > oops.
>
> It would have been simple enough for Kenneth Sloan
> to have written *more clearly*: "I wonder if anyone
> else noticed the movie character like Sam Sloan?"
For the record, my suggestion (above) attempted
to stay as close as possible (changing it only
slightly) to what Kenneth Sloan originally wrote.
It's *not* how I would have written that question if I
had felt free to use my own words in the first place.
(For instance, I used the American term 'movie'
(above) rather than the British term 'film'.)
"Has anyone else noticed the character who
resembles Sam Sloan in the film, 'X3: The
Last Stand' (or 'X-Men: The Last Stand')?"
I suppose that it's possible for some 'readers'
to misunderstand anything written, however
lucidly, but I prefer not to make too many
concessions to the nearly illiterate 'readers'.
Nick Cramer has let me know, for instance,
that he already regards some of the writers
(particularly Mike Murray) in this thread
as not worth reading.
--Nick
> Perhaps it has not occurred to Kenneth Sloan that
> his writing's clarity could have been improved.
>
> > > I regret it if my assumption was incorrect.
> >
> > I suspect that by now we *all* regret your incorrect assumption.
>
> Perhaps Kenneth Sloan regrets that some writers here
> have revealed more evidence of their dishonesty and/or
> racist stereotypes, but that evidence reflects who they
> are far more than it reflects anything factual about me.
>
> > > Perhaps Kenneth Sloan was referring to a
> > > character whom he perceived as comparable to
> > > Sam Sloan (the writer in rec.games.chess.*)
> > > but who was *not* "named 'Sam Sloan'".
> > > If that's what Kenneth Sloan meant, then
> > > his original post did not make that clear
> > > enough to me.
> >
> > My fault.
>
> Again, it would have been simple enough for Kenneth
> Sloan to have written *more clearly*, "I wonder if
> anyone else noticed the movie character like
> Sam Sloan?", rather than writing, "I wonder if
> anyone else noticed the 'Sam Sloan' character?".
>
> > I was writing for an audience of normal intelligence.
>
> If Kenneth Sloan would like to contend that I must
> be beneath 'normal intelligence', then how much
> would he care to bet on that proposition?
>
> > I also assumed that most folk attempting a reply
> > might actually have seen the film in question first.
>
> I have not watched that film. I had watched a trailer
> of that film, which gave me a general impression of it.
> Sometimes I make a decision based on the trailer
> about whether or not I should pay to watch a film.
>
> > My suspiscion
>
> Typo or misspelling by Kenneth Sloan.
>
> > is that a normally intelligent person familiar with both this
> > newsgroup *and* the film would make the necessary connection.
> > I did not reckon on the (regretably common) tendency for
> > some posters to forge ahead without benefit of knowledge.
>
> I claim no great expertise on American popular culture.
>
> Elsewhere in this thread, Taylor Kingston apparently has
> dismissed a law journal article about American racism as
> not worth reading without, as far as I know, having read it.
>
> > > If Kenneth Sloan would like to make a distinction
> > > between his question implying that "the 'Sam
> > > Sloan' character" appeared in the film and my
> > > writing that Kenneth Sloan had mentioned
> > > that "a character named 'Sam Sloan'" had
> > > appeared in that film, then I apologise for
> > > my assumption (described above) and for
> > > my unintentional misrepresentation
> > > of exactly what Kenneth Sloan wrote.
> >
> > Apology accepted. Try not to let it happen again.
>
> I shall keep in mind that Kenneth Sloan seems
> unaware that his writing's clarity could be improved.
>
> --Nick
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 23:23:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
On 15 Jun 2006 17:51:35 -0700, "Nick" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>"Has anyone else noticed the character who
>resembles Sam Sloan in the film, 'X3: The
>Last Stand' (or 'X-Men: The Last Stand')?"
Better than Nick's original suggestion, but not as crisp as K. Sloan's
original.
>Nick Cramer has let me know, for instance,
>that he already regards some of the writers
>(particularly Mike Murray) in this thread
>as not worth reading.
Now, if Nick Cramer could convince us he's someone who's opinion is
worth noting...., I'd, well, I'd note it.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 15:59:49
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> writes:
> > Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> >> "Nick" <[email protected]> writes:
> >> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >> Nick wrote:
> >> >> > I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.
> >> >>
> >> >> So do most of us here. So why bother telling us about
> >> >> some stupid movie we can look up if we want?
> >> >
> >> > In his post creating this thread, Kenneth Sloan mentioned
> >> > that a character named 'Sam Sloan' appeared in a recent film.
> >>
> >> False.
> >
> > In his post creating this thread, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> >
> > "Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
> > I wonder if anyone else noticed the 'Sam Sloan' character?"
> > --Kenneth Sloan
> >
> > As far as I know, 'X3: The Last Stand' refers to the
> > 2006 film described in the Internet Movie Database
> > as 'X-Men: The Last Stand'. I have not seen this film,
> > but I believe that it's accurate for me to describe it as
> > 'a recent film', which is what I did.
> >
> > Strictly speaking, Kenneth Sloan wrote a question,
> > "I wonder if anyone else noticed the 'Sam Sloan'
> > character?", implying that the 'Sam Sloan' character
> > appeared in the film that he had just watched.
> >
> > Again, I have not seen this film, and so I assumed
> > that "the 'Sam Sloan' character" mentioned by
> > Kenneth Sloan was named 'Sam Sloan'.
>
> oops.
It would have been simple enough for Kenneth Sloan
to have written *more clearly*: "I wonder if anyone
else noticed the movie character like Sam Sloan?"
Perhaps it has not occurred to Kenneth Sloan that
his writing's clarity could have been improved.
> > I regret it if my assumption was incorrect.
>
> I suspect that by now we *all* regret your incorrect assumption.
Perhaps Kenneth Sloan regrets that some writers here
have revealed more evidence of their dishonesty and/or
racist stereotypes, but that evidence reflects who they
are far more than it reflects anything factual about me.
> > Perhaps Kenneth Sloan was referring to a
> > character whom he perceived as comparable to
> > Sam Sloan (the writer in rec.games.chess.*)
> > but who was *not* "named 'Sam Sloan'".
> > If that's what Kenneth Sloan meant, then
> > his original post did not make that clear
> > enough to me.
>
> My fault.
Again, it would have been simple enough for Kenneth
Sloan to have written *more clearly*, "I wonder if
anyone else noticed the movie character like
Sam Sloan?", rather than writing, "I wonder if
anyone else noticed the 'Sam Sloan' character?".
> I was writing for an audience of normal intelligence.
If Kenneth Sloan would like to contend that I must
be beneath 'normal intelligence', then how much
would he care to bet on that proposition?
> I also assumed that most folk attempting a reply
> might actually have seen the film in question first.
I have not watched that film. I had watched a trailer
of that film, which gave me a general impression of it.
Sometimes I make a decision based on the trailer
about whether or not I should pay to watch a film.
> My suspiscion
Typo or misspelling by Kenneth Sloan.
> is that a normally intelligent person familiar with both this
> newsgroup *and* the film would make the necessary connection.
> I did not reckon on the (regretably common) tendency for
> some posters to forge ahead without benefit of knowledge.
I claim no great expertise on American popular culture.
Elsewhere in this thread, Taylor Kingston apparently has
dismissed a law journal article about American racism as
not worth reading without, as far as I know, having read it.
> > If Kenneth Sloan would like to make a distinction
> > between his question implying that "the 'Sam
> > Sloan' character" appeared in the film and my
> > writing that Kenneth Sloan had mentioned
> > that "a character named 'Sam Sloan'" had
> > appeared in that film, then I apologise for
> > my assumption (described above) and for
> > my unintentional misrepresentation
> > of exactly what Kenneth Sloan wrote.
>
> Apology accepted. Try not to let it happen again.
I shall keep in mind that Kenneth Sloan seems
unaware that his writing's clarity could be improved.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 17:14:54
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
On 15 Jun 2006 15:59:49 -0700, "Nick" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Again, it would have been simple enough for Kenneth
>Sloan to have written *more clearly*, "I wonder if
>anyone else noticed the movie character like
>Sam Sloan?", rather than writing, "I wonder if
>anyone else noticed the 'Sam Sloan' character?".
Nick's suggested "improvement" seems clumsy, and might tempt the
grammatically challenged reader into wondering just what movie
character Sam Sloan noticed, especially if said reader had just fired
up a Winston. Maybe Nick should stick to spell-checking.
>> I was writing for an audience of normal intelligence.
>If Kenneth Sloan would like to contend that I must
>be beneath 'normal intelligence', then how much
>would he care to bet on that proposition?
>
>> I also assumed that most folk attempting a reply
>> might actually have seen the film in question first.
>
>I have not watched that film. I had watched a trailer
>of that film, which gave me a general impression of it.
>Sometimes I make a decision based on the trailer
>about whether or not I should pay to watch a film.
>
>> My suspiscion
>
>Typo or misspelling by Kenneth Sloan.
Now he's on a roll.
>> is that a normally intelligent person familiar with both this
>> newsgroup *and* the film would make the necessary connection.
>> I did not reckon on the (regretably common) tendency for
>> some posters to forge ahead without benefit of knowledge.
>
>I claim no great expertise on American popular culture.
>
>Elsewhere in this thread, Taylor Kingston apparently has
>dismissed a law journal article about American racism as
>not worth reading without, as far as I know, having read it.
>
>> > If Kenneth Sloan would like to make a distinction
>> > between his question implying that "the 'Sam
>> > Sloan' character" appeared in the film and my
>> > writing that Kenneth Sloan had mentioned
>> > that "a character named 'Sam Sloan'" had
>> > appeared in that film, then I apologise for
>> > my assumption (described above) and for
>> > my unintentional misrepresentation
>> > of exactly what Kenneth Sloan wrote.
>>
>> Apology accepted. Try not to let it happen again.
>
>I shall keep in mind that Kenneth Sloan seems
>unaware that his writing's clarity could be improved.
Perhaps Nick is unaware that his thinking's clarity could be improved.
Hmmm. Of course, then he *would* probably be unaware of it, wouldn't
he?
>
>--Nick
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 17:57:46
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > I have spent part of my past day reading a cogent
> > article about American racism, 'The Current Landscape
> > of Race' by Richard Delgado, in the 'Michigan Law Review'
> > (May 2006, vol. 109, issue 6, pp. 1269-1286).
Richard Delgado is a professor of law and Derrick Bell
Fellow at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
I am pleased that Richard Delgado has concurred with
some of my main conclusions (which I have formed
independently) about American racism.
> Nick, you can save yourself a lot of time by just reading W.D. Fard.
> He proved decades ago that all white people are innately evil.
> Once you realize that, all is explained.
Taylor Kingston, a white American (I have seen his photo),
apparently persists in his racist stereotyping of me.
I assume (though I cannot be certain) that Taylor Kingston
has *not* read the article about American racism by
Richard Delgado that I have cited, and Taylor Kingston
seems quick to dismiss it as not worth reading.
That apparently shows Taylor Kingston's prejudice.
Why has Taylor Kingston apparently presumed (above)
that I have read or should take a serious interest in reading
Wallace Fard Muhammad (aka 'W.D. Fard') or be inclined
to accept what Wallace Fard Muhammad has written?
Can Taylor Kingston cite any evidence that I ever have
mentioned Wallace Fard Muhammad or the Nation of
Islam (which was founded by Wallace Fard Muhammad)
in any way that implies that I likely must be an adherent
or a supporter of Wallace Fard Muhammad or the
Nation of Islam?
I would submit that what Taylor Kingston has
written reflects his racist stereotyping of me.
Why would Taylor Kingston apparently presume
that I likely should be sympathetic to Wallace
Fard Muhammad's (extreme) views on racism?
I am not a white European according to racial
appearance (that's obvious to everyone who's
ever met me). I have criticised American racism
rather than telling the sycophantic lies about it
that presumably would please Taylor Kingston.
My criticisms of American racism are common
within my community. Indeed, some people in
my community have sometimes criticised me for
*not* being critical enough of American racism.
In contrast to Taylor Kingston, who always has
refused to describe Stan Booz's 'Nigger Nick' slur
as racist, as I recall, Rob Mitchell, a white American,
has condemned it as 'indefensible'. I have some
serious differences with Rob Mitchell, yet he and
I always have been to communicate in civil terms.
I have no doubt that Nick Cramer, a white American,
also would condemn Stan Booz's 'Nigger Nick' slur
as racist as well as condemning those American
writers here who have sought to defend or to
excuse that 'Nigger Nick' slur.
My friends of white European ancestry in the UK
would regard 'Nigger Nick' as undoubtedly racist,
and they would regard the efforts of some American
writers here to defend or to excuse that slur as
more evidence that racism's widely condoned or
approved of by Americans. I expect that my
friends would regard Taylor Kingston's latest
trolling post as more evidence of his racism.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 16:53:39
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> writes:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> Nick wrote:
> >> > I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.
> >>
> >> So do most of us here. So why bother telling us about
> >> some stupid movie we can look up if we want?
> >
> > In his post creating this thread, Kenneth Sloan mentioned
> > that a character named 'Sam Sloan' appeared in a recent film.
>
> False.
In his post creating this thread, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
"Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
I wonder if anyone else noticed the 'Sam Sloan' character?"
--Kenneth Sloan
As far as I know, 'X3: The Last Stand' refers to the
2006 film described in the Internet Movie Database
as 'X-Men: The Last Stand'. I have not seen this film,
but I believe that it's accurate for me to describe it as
'a recent film', which is what I did.
Strictly speaking, Kenneth Sloan wrote a question,
"I wonder if anyone else noticed the 'Sam Sloan'
character?", implying that the 'Sam Sloan' character
appeared in the film that he had just watched.
Again, I have not seen this film, and so I assumed
that "the 'Sam Sloan' character" mentioned by
Kenneth Sloan was named 'Sam Sloan'.
I regret it if my assumption was incorrect.
Perhaps Kenneth Sloan was referring to a
character whom he perceived as comparable to
Sam Sloan (the writer in rec.games.chess.*)
but who was *not* "named 'Sam Sloan'".
If that's what Kenneth Sloan meant, then
his original post did not make that clear
enough to me.
If Kenneth Sloan would like to make a distinction
between his question implying that "the 'Sam
Sloan' character" appeared in the film and my
writing that Kenneth Sloan had mentioned
that "a character named 'Sam Sloan'" had
appeared in that film, then I apologise for
my assumption (described above) and for
my unintentional misrepresentation
of exactly what Kenneth Sloan wrote.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 08:56:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Nick wrote:
> I have spent part of my past day reading a cogent
> article about American racism, 'The Current Landscape
> of Race' by Richard Delgado, in the 'Michigan Law Review'
> (May 2006, vol. 109, issue 6, pp. 1269-1286).
Nick, you can save yourself a lot of time by just reading W.D. Fard.
He proved decades ago that all white people are innately evil. Once you
realize that, all is explained.
|
| |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 18:57:28
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > (The context was snipped again by Taylor Kingston.)
> >
> > > Nick wrote:
> > > > Why is Taylor Kingston apparently misrepresenting
> > > > what I have described of my friend's response as my
> > > > own independent view?
> > >
> > > Nick, it's still going right over your head.
> >
> > I have accurately described my friend's response
> > to Taylor Kingston's post.
> >
> > > > My friend informed me that, as far as he knew,
> > > > *there was no 'plight of London'* (his emphasis) to speak of.
> > > > He felt that much of the news coverage was overblown.
> > > > My friend mentioned that his neighbours and he were
> > > > 'laughing' (his term) at the bombers' incompetence.
> > > > His neighbours and he were not obsessing about the
> > > > supposed 'plight of London' (to quote Taylor Kingston).
> > > > He seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston had used
> > > > that expression and attributed it to ignorance.
> >
> > My friend often has criticised Taylor Kingston for
> > pontificating on subjects about which Taylor Kingston
> > has shown his ignorance. My friend also has
> > criticised Taylor Kingston for being disingenuous
> > in attempting to cover up his errors.
> >
> > > > Would Taylor Kingston, who was not there, like to
> > > > tell my friend that he did not observe what he did?
> > > >
> > > > My friend went on to say that the deaths were statistically
> > > > minor in a city of London's great size. He added that he
> > > > still felt safer from violent death in London than he would
> > > > have felt in some cities in the United States.
> > > >
> > > > Taylor Kingston has snipped what I wrote earlier:
> > >
> > > Nick, for someone who complains repeatedly that his
> > > "context has been snipped," you are really botching up
> > > the context of my "plight of London" rek.
> >
> > In contrast to Taylor Kingston (who has much snipped
> > what I have written), I have snipped nothing written by
> > Taylor Kingston in this thread.
> >
> > Again, I earlier forwarded Taylor Kingston's post to my
> > friend, who then drew his own conclusions accordingly.
> > I can assure Taylor Kingston that my friend can and
> > does think independently of me and does not depend
> > on me telling him how to think or what to say.
> >
> > If Taylor Kingston would like to dispute my friend's
> > observations or critical judgment of Taylor Kingston,
> > then Taylor Kingston should address that to him
> > rather than keep misrepresenting me as having
> > made his observations or critical judgment.
> >
> > My friend and I have noted that Taylor Kingston
> > has quite a record of misrepresenting other writers.
> >
> > > For a man who often denigrates the erudition of others,
> >
> > That's another false statement by Taylor Kingston.
Taylor Kingston has *not* disputed that
he made that false statement about me.
> > As I recall, I have *not* 'often denigrate(d) the erudition of
> > others' *when that erudition is real rather than pretense*.
> >
> > With respect to some fields of *my comparative expertise*,
> > I have criticised the ignorant pontifications of some writers
> > (including Taylor Kingston) who have pretended to be 'erudite'
> > in those fields. For instance, I have criticised Sam Sloan
> > for pontificating about Chinese culture and language(s);
> > perhaps Taylor Kingston would prefer to accept
> > Sam Sloan's 'erudition' on those subjects.
> >
> > As far as I know, there are some writers here (e.g. Vince
> > Hart, Don Mihokovich) who are practising lawyers. I never
> > have disputed any legal opinion expressed by someone
> > who's qualified in that field of law. I never have disputed
> > any medical opinion expressed by someone who's
> > qualified in that field of medicine.
> >
> > As I recall, I have disputed (successfully) David Richerby's
> > opinion on a point of mathematical nomenclature.
> > I believe that it's more common in the mathematical
> > literature for 'abelian' to be written in lowercase rather
> > than as 'Abelian' in uppercase. David Richerby took
> > the opposite view. I have read enough of group theory
> > to be confident that I was right on that point. I have
> > *not* disputed David Richerby's opinions, however, in
> > some fields in which I feel unqualified to comment.
> > David Richerby's clearly far less qualified than I
> > to comment about the realities of anti-Chinese
> > racism in the United States, but he went ahead and
> > arrogantly told me that I must be wrong about it.
> >
> > Would Taylor Kingston again like to claim that he's
> > erudite in writing about the history of the Second World
> > War while I must be ignorant and misinformed about it?
> >
> > > and boasts of his own intellectual attainments,
> >
> > I have written carefully enough about what I know.
> > I suspect that Taylor Kingston, like some of my other
> > trolls, would like to misrepresent what I have written.
> >
> > I would say that I evidently am much more qualified
> > than Taylor Kingston to write about the history of
> > the Second World War. I have *not* claimed,
> > however, that I am more qualified than Taylor
> > Kingston to write about chess history in general.
> >
> > > you show an embarassing lack of comprehension.
> > > You are also making a mountain of a molehill,
> > > and looking quite silly in the process.
> >
> > I have accurately described my friend's response
> > to Taylor Kingston's post. I expect that my friend will
> > 'appreciate' Taylor Kingston's comments toward him.
> >
> > > Now, using Google, go back to my 10 July 2005 post. Read it again
> > > (and again and again if necessary) until you understand it. It would
> > > help greatly if you also read the preceding posts, so that you
> > > understand the surrounding context and exactly what my post replied to.
> > > Because you seem to be having such a hard time with it, I will give you
> > > a few helpful clues and hints to aid your understanding:
> >
> > My friend's already noted with disdain that
> > Taylor Kingston's often extremely conscending.
> >
> > > 1. The post was directed at Goran Tomic and Sam Sloan.
> > > 2. Whenever he has no arguments to support his loony positions
> > > (which is quite often), Goran Tomic is fond of exclaiming
> > > "This is chess newsgroup! Return on chess topics!"
> >
> > Goran Tomic's not the only writer who has acted like that.
> > Goran Tomic may be the only writer whom Taylor Kingston
> > prefers to criticise for acting like that.
> >
> > > 3. The post actually has nothing to do with London, bombing,
> > > plights, etc.
> >
> > Again, my friend seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston had
> > used the expression 'the plight of London'. That's all.
> >
> > > 4. Contrary to the interpretation you have so far given it, the post
> > > is not to be taken in a literal sense. Think of such adjectives as
> > > sardonic, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek. Think of such nouns as put-on,
> > > lampoon, skewer.
> >
> > Again, I have accurately described my friend's response
> > to Taylor Kingston's post. Taylor Kingston insists on
> > misrepresenting my friend's response as my own
> > independent view (or 'interpretation').
> >
> > As far as I can tell, my friend, a Londoner who often
> > used a tube station that was bombed, felt that it was
> > *inappropriate for Taylor Kingston* (an American who
> > was far away from it) to mention 'the plight of London'
> > and drag that tragedy into Taylor Kingston's 'flame war'
> > against Goran Tomic. My friend regards gratuitous
> > references to the London bombings as distasteful.
> >
> > > See if you can figure it out now. And remember,
> > > this counts toward your final grade.
> >
> > My friend's already noted with disdain that
> > Taylor Kingston's often extremely condescending.
> >
> > > > "My friend recognised that Taylor Kingston may
> > > > have been attempting to offer his sympathy,
> > >
> > > I have no sympathy for Goran Tomic or Sam Sloan.
> >
> > Taylor Kingston has snipped the context of what
> > I wrote and seriously distorted what I meant.
> >
> > What I meant was: "My friend recognised that
> > Taylor Kingston may have been attempting to
> > offer his sympathy" (to the people of London).
> >
> > --Nick
>
> Nick, I think in the dictionary, next to the word "oblivious,"
> there is a picture of you. Whoosh! Right over the flat-top.
> Gawd, but you need a sense of humor.
Apparently, Taylor Kingston hopes to pass off his
false statement (cited above) that I allegedly 'often
denigrate the erudition of others' as a kind of joke.
It's common for dishonest writers in RGC* to claim
that they were just joking after they have been caught
making false statements.
My friend, a Londoner who often used a tube station
that was bombed, felt it was inappropriate for Taylor
Kingston to use the phrase, 'the plight of London',
and drag that tragedy into Taylor Kingston's 'flame
war' against Goran Tomic. My friend believes that
Taylor Kingston could have made whatever point he
intended to make against Goran Tomic *without*
having to mention 'the plight of London'. My friend
tends to regard gratuitous references, particularly
when made by outsiders, to the London bombings
as distasteful and not funny.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 18:40:44
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Nick wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> (The context was snipped again by Taylor Kingston.)
>
> > Nick wrote:
> > > Why is Taylor Kingston apparently misrepresenting
> > > what I have described of my friend's response as my
> > > own independent view?
> >
> > Nick, it's still going right over your head.
>
> I have accurately described my friend's response
> to Taylor Kingston's post.
>
> > > My friend informed me that, as far as he knew,
> > > *there was no 'plight of London'* (his emphasis) to speak of.
> > > He felt that much of the news coverage was overblown.
> > > My friend mentioned that his neighbours and he were
> > > 'laughing' (his term) at the bombers' incompetence.
> > > His neighbours and he were not obsessing about the
> > > supposed 'plight of London' (to quote Taylor Kingston).
> > > He seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston had used
> > > that expression and attributed it to ignorance.
>
> My friend often has criticised Taylor Kingston for
> pontificating on subjects about which Taylor Kingston
> has shown his ignorance. My friend also has
> criticised Taylor Kingston for being disingenuous
> in attempting to cover up his errors.
>
> > > Would Taylor Kingston, who was not there, like to
> > > tell my friend that he did not observe what he did?
> > >
> > > My friend went on to say that the deaths were statistically
> > > minor in a city of London's great size. He added that he
> > > still felt safer from violent death in London than he would
> > > have felt in some cities in the United States.
> > >
> > > Taylor Kingston has snipped what I wrote earlier:
> >
> > Nick, for someone who complains repeatedly that his
> > "context has been snipped," you are really botching up
> > the context of my "plight of London" rek.
>
> In contrast to Taylor Kingston (who has much snipped
> what I have written), I have snipped nothing written by
> Taylor Kingston in this thread.
>
> Again, I earlier forwarded Taylor Kingston's post to my
> friend, who then drew his own conclusions accordingly.
> I can assure Taylor Kingston that my friend can and
> does think independently of me and does not depend
> on me telling him how to think or what to say.
>
> If Taylor Kingston would like to dispute my friend's
> observations or critical judgment of Taylor Kingston,
> then Taylor Kingston should address that to him
> rather than keep misrepresenting me as having
> made his observations or critical judgment.
>
> My friend and I have noted that Taylor Kingston
> has quite a record of misrepresenting other writers.
>
> > For a man who often denigrates the erudition of others,
>
> That's another false statement by Taylor Kingston.
>
> As I recall, I have *not* 'often denigrate(d) the erudition of
> others' *when that erudition is real rather than pretense*.
>
> With respect to some fields of *my comparative expertise*,
> I have criticised the ignorant pontifications of some writers
> (including Taylor Kingston) who have pretended to be 'erudite'
> in those fields. For instance, I have criticised Sam Sloan
> for pontificating about Chinese culture and language(s);
> perhaps Taylor Kingston would prefer to accept
> Sam Sloan's 'erudition' on those subjects.
>
> As far as I know, there are some writers here (e.g. Vince
> Hart, Don Mihokovich) who are practising lawyers. I never
> have disputed any legal opinion expressed by someone
> who's qualified in that field of law. I never have disputed
> any medical opinion expressed by someone who's
> qualified in that field of medicine.
>
> As I recall, I have disputed (successfully) David Richerby's
> opinion on a point of mathematical nomenclature.
> I believe that it's more common in the mathematical
> literature for 'abelian' to be written in lowercase rather
> than as 'Abelian' in uppercase. David Richerby took
> the opposite view. I have read enough of group theory
> to be confident that I was right on that point. I have
> *not* disputed David Richerby's opinions, however, in
> some fields in which I feel unqualified to comment.
> David Richerby's clearly far less qualified than I
> to comment about the realities of anti-Chinese
> racism in the United States, but he went ahead and
> arrogantly told me that I must be wrong about it.
>
> Would Taylor Kingston again like to claim that he's
> erudite in writing about the history of the Second World
> War while I must be ignorant and misinformed about it?
>
> > and boasts of his own intellectual attainments,
>
> I have written carefully enough about what I know.
> I suspect that Taylor Kingston, like some of my other
> trolls, would like to misrepresent what I have written.
>
> I would say that I evidently am much more qualified
> than Taylor Kingston to write about the history of
> the Second World War. I have *not* claimed,
> however, that I am more qualified than Taylor
> Kingston to write about chess history in general.
>
> > you show an embarassing lack of comprehension.
> > You are also making a mountain of a molehill,
> > and looking quite silly in the process.
>
> I have accurately described my friend's response
> to Taylor Kingston's post. I expect that my friend will
> 'appreciate' Taylor Kingston's comments toward him.
>
> > Now, using Google, go back to my 10 July 2005 post. Read it again
> > (and again and again if necessary) until you understand it. It would
> > help greatly if you also read the preceding posts, so that you
> > understand the surrounding context and exactly what my post replied to.
> > Because you seem to be having such a hard time with it, I will give you
> > a few helpful clues and hints to aid your understanding:
>
> My friend's already noted with disdain that
> Taylor Kingston's often extremely conscending.
>
> > 1. The post was directed at Goran Tomic and Sam Sloan.
> > 2. Whenever he has no arguments to support his loony positions
> > (which is quite often), Goran Tomic is fond of exclaiming
> > "This is chess newsgroup! Return on chess topics!"
>
> Goran Tomic's not the only writer who has acted like that.
> Goran Tomic may be the only writer whom Taylor Kingston
> prefers to criticise for acting like that.
>
> > 3. The post actually has nothing to do with London, bombing,
> > plights, etc.
>
> Again, my friend seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston had
> used the expression 'the plight of London'. That's all.
>
> > 4. Contrary to the interpretation you have so far given it, the post
> > is not to be taken in a literal sense. Think of such adjectives as
> > sardonic, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek. Think of such nouns as put-on,
> > lampoon, skewer.
>
> Again, I have accurately described my friend's response
> to Taylor Kingston's post. Taylor Kingston insists on
> misrepresenting my friend's response as my own
> independent view (or 'interpretation').
>
> As far as I can tell, my friend, a Londoner who often
> used a tube station that was bombed, felt that it was
> *inappropriate for Taylor Kingston* (an American who
> was far away from it) to mention 'the plight of London'
> and drag that tragedy into Taylor Kingston's 'flame war'
> against Goran Tomic. My friend regards gratuitous
> references to the London bombings as distasteful.
>
> > See if you can figure it out now. And remember,
> > this counts toward your final grade.
>
> My friend's already noted with disdain that
> Taylor Kingston's often extremely condescending.
>
> > > "My friend recognised that Taylor Kingston may
> > > have been attempting to offer his sympathy,
> >
> > I have no sympathy for Goran Tomic or Sam Sloan.
>
> Taylor Kingston has snipped the context of what
> I wrote and seriously distorted what I meant.
>
> What I meant was: "My friend recognised that
> Taylor Kingston may have been attempting to
> offer his sympathy" (to the people of London).
>
> --Nick
Nick, I think in the dictionary, next to the word "oblivious," there
is a picture of you. Whoosh! Right over the flat-top. Gawd, but you
need a sense of humor.
|
| |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 18:33:35
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.
>
> So do most of us here. So why bother telling us about
> some stupid movie we can look up if we want?
In his post creating this thread, Kenneth Sloan mentioned
that a character named 'Sam Sloan' appeared in a recent film.
I simply noted that it's not the first time that a character
named 'Sam Sloan' has appeared in a film. I also
mentioned that a character named 'Sam Sloan' has
appeared in a recent novel.
If it's considered 'off-topic' for me to mention that a
character named 'Sam Sloan' has appeared in film
and fiction, then it must have been 'off-topic' for
Kenneth Sloan to mention that a character named
'Sam Sloan' appeared in a film in the first place.
I note that Steven B Dowd (aka 'James Rynd)
apparently prefers to criticise me for mentioning
the 1942 film, 'It Happened in Flatbush', while he
has *not* criticised Taylor Kingston for mentioning
some details about the career of William Frawley,
the actor who played 'Sam Sloan' in that film.
Anyone who's interested in details about
William Frawley's career could use the
Internet Movie Database for that purpose.
Perhaps Steven B Dowd should consider
telling Taylor Kingston not to bother telling him
about some details of William Frawley's career.
Nearly every reader in rec.games.chess.misc
presumably knows how to look up articles at
the ChessBase website. So would Steven B Dowd
criticise all other writers in rec.games.chess.misc
who have posted links to ChessBase articles or
would he criticise only me for ever doing that?
> Don't you have some admirers elsewhere you
> can entertain with your supposed bon mots?
I have spent part of my past day reading a cogent
article about American racism, 'The Current Landscape
of Race' by Richard Delgado, in the 'Michigan Law Review'
(May 2006, vol. 109, issue 6, pp. 1269-1286).
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 17:58:16
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
(The context was snipped again by Taylor Kingston.)
> Nick wrote:
> > Why is Taylor Kingston apparently misrepresenting
> > what I have described of my friend's response as my
> > own independent view?
>
> Nick, it's still going right over your head.
I have accurately described my friend's response
to Taylor Kingston's post.
> > My friend informed me that, as far as he knew,
> > *there was no 'plight of London'* (his emphasis) to speak of.
> > He felt that much of the news coverage was overblown.
> > My friend mentioned that his neighbours and he were
> > 'laughing' (his term) at the bombers' incompetence.
> > His neighbours and he were not obsessing about the
> > supposed 'plight of London' (to quote Taylor Kingston).
> > He seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston had used
> > that expression and attributed it to ignorance.
My friend often has criticised Taylor Kingston for
pontificating on subjects about which Taylor Kingston
has shown his ignorance. My friend also has
criticised Taylor Kingston for being disingenuous
in attempting to cover up his errors.
> > Would Taylor Kingston, who was not there, like to
> > tell my friend that he did not observe what he did?
> >
> > My friend went on to say that the deaths were statistically
> > minor in a city of London's great size. He added that he
> > still felt safer from violent death in London than he would
> > have felt in some cities in the United States.
> >
> > Taylor Kingston has snipped what I wrote earlier:
>
> Nick, for someone who complains repeatedly that his
> "context has been snipped," you are really botching up
> the context of my "plight of London" rek.
In contrast to Taylor Kingston (who has much snipped
what I have written), I have snipped nothing written by
Taylor Kingston in this thread.
Again, I earlier forwarded Taylor Kingston's post to my
friend, who then drew his own conclusions accordingly.
I can assure Taylor Kingston that my friend can and
does think independently of me and does not depend
on me telling him how to think or what to say.
If Taylor Kingston would like to dispute my friend's
observations or critical judgment of Taylor Kingston,
then Taylor Kingston should address that to him
rather than keep misrepresenting me as having
made his observations or critical judgment.
My friend and I have noted that Taylor Kingston
has quite a record of misrepresenting other writers.
> For a man who often denigrates the erudition of others,
That's another false statement by Taylor Kingston.
As I recall, I have *not* 'often denigrate(d) the erudition of
others' *when that erudition is real rather than pretense*.
With respect to some fields of *my comparative expertise*,
I have criticised the ignorant pontifications of some writers
(including Taylor Kingston) who have pretended to be 'erudite'
in those fields. For instance, I have criticised Sam Sloan
for pontificating about Chinese culture and language(s);
perhaps Taylor Kingston would prefer to accept
Sam Sloan's 'erudition' on those subjects.
As far as I know, there are some writers here (e.g. Vince
Hart, Don Mihokovich) who are practising lawyers. I never
have disputed any legal opinion expressed by someone
who's qualified in that field of law. I never have disputed
any medical opinion expressed by someone who's
qualified in that field of medicine.
As I recall, I have disputed (successfully) David Richerby's
opinion on a point of mathematical nomenclature.
I believe that it's more common in the mathematical
literature for 'abelian' to be written in lowercase rather
than as 'Abelian' in uppercase. David Richerby took
the opposite view. I have read enough of group theory
to be confident that I was right on that point. I have
*not* disputed David Richerby's opinions, however, in
some fields in which I feel unqualified to comment.
David Richerby's clearly far less qualified than I
to comment about the realities of anti-Chinese
racism in the United States, but he went ahead and
arrogantly told me that I must be wrong about it.
Would Taylor Kingston again like to claim that he's
erudite in writing about the history of the Second World
War while I must be ignorant and misinformed about it?
> and boasts of his own intellectual attainments,
I have written carefully enough about what I know.
I suspect that Taylor Kingston, like some of my other
trolls, would like to misrepresent what I have written.
I would say that I evidently am much more qualified
than Taylor Kingston to write about the history of
the Second World War. I have *not* claimed,
however, that I am more qualified than Taylor
Kingston to write about chess history in general.
> you show an embarassing lack of comprehension.
> You are also making a mountain of a molehill,
> and looking quite silly in the process.
I have accurately described my friend's response
to Taylor Kingston's post. I expect that my friend will
'appreciate' Taylor Kingston's comments toward him.
> Now, using Google, go back to my 10 July 2005 post. Read it again
> (and again and again if necessary) until you understand it. It would
> help greatly if you also read the preceding posts, so that you
> understand the surrounding context and exactly what my post replied to.
> Because you seem to be having such a hard time with it, I will give you
> a few helpful clues and hints to aid your understanding:
My friend's already noted with disdain that
Taylor Kingston's often extremely conscending.
> 1. The post was directed at Goran Tomic and Sam Sloan.
> 2. Whenever he has no arguments to support his loony positions
> (which is quite often), Goran Tomic is fond of exclaiming
> "This is chess newsgroup! Return on chess topics!"
Goran Tomic's not the only writer who has acted like that.
Goran Tomic may be the only writer whom Taylor Kingston
prefers to criticise for acting like that.
> 3. The post actually has nothing to do with London, bombing,
> plights, etc.
Again, my friend seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston had
used the expression 'the plight of London'. That's all.
> 4. Contrary to the interpretation you have so far given it, the post
> is not to be taken in a literal sense. Think of such adjectives as
> sardonic, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek. Think of such nouns as put-on,
> lampoon, skewer.
Again, I have accurately described my friend's response
to Taylor Kingston's post. Taylor Kingston insists on
misrepresenting my friend's response as my own
independent view (or 'interpretation').
As far as I can tell, my friend, a Londoner who often
used a tube station that was bombed, felt that it was
*inappropriate for Taylor Kingston* (an American who
was far away from it) to mention 'the plight of London'
and drag that tragedy into Taylor Kingston's 'flame war'
against Goran Tomic. My friend regards gratuitous
references to the London bombings as distasteful.
> See if you can figure it out now. And remember,
> this counts toward your final grade.
My friend's already noted with disdain that
Taylor Kingston's often extremely condescending.
> > "My friend recognised that Taylor Kingston may
> > have been attempting to offer his sympathy,
>
> I have no sympathy for Goran Tomic or Sam Sloan.
Taylor Kingston has snipped the context of what
I wrote and seriously distorted what I meant.
What I meant was: "My friend recognised that
Taylor Kingston may have been attempting to
offer his sympathy" (to the people of London).
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 06:09:38
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
On 13 Jun 2006 17:58:16 -0700, "Nick" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>I have criticised the ignorant pontifications of some writers
>(including Taylor Kingston) who have pretended to be 'erudite'
>in those fields. For instance, I have criticised Sam Sloan
>for pontificating about Chinese culture and language(s);
Just one point of clarification: when criticizing others for
pontificating, does Nick speak ex cathedra?
|
| |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 05:48:05
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Nick wrote:
> Why is Taylor Kingston apparently misrepresenting
> what I have described of my friend's response as my
> own independent view?
Nick, it's still going right over your head.
> My friend informed me that, as far as he knew,
> *there was no 'plight of London'* (his emphasis) to speak of.
> He felt that much of the news coverage was overblown.
> My friend mentioned that his neighbours and he were
> 'laughing' (his term) at the bombers' incompetence.
> His neighbours and he were not obsessing about the
> supposed 'plight of London' (to quote Taylor Kingston).
> He seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston had used
> that expression and attributed it to ignorance.
>
> Would Taylor Kingston, who was not there, like to
> tell my friend that he did not observe what he did?
>
> My friend went on to say that the deaths were statistically
> minor in a city of London's great size. He added that he
> still felt safer from violent death in London than he would
> have felt in some cities in the United States.
>
> Taylor Kingston has snipped what I wrote earlier:
Nick, for someone who complains repeatedly that his "context has been
snipped," you are really botching up the context of my "plight of
London" rek. For a man who often denigrates the erudition of others,
and boasts of his own intellectual attainments, you show an embarassing
lack of comprehension. You are also making a mountain of a molehill,
and looking quite silly in the process.
Now, using Google, go back to my 10 July 2005 post. Read it again
(and again and again if necessary) until you understand it. It would
help greatly if you also read the preceding posts, so that you
understand the surrounding context and exactly what my post replied to.
Because you seem to be having such a hard time with it, I will give you
a few helpful clues and hints to aid your understanding:
1. The post was directed at Goran Tomic and Sam Sloan.
2. Whenever he has no arguments to support his loony positions (which
is quite often), Goran Tomic is fond of exclaiming "This is chess
newsgroup! Return on chess topics!"
3. The post actually has nothing to do with London, bombing, plights,
etc.
4. Contrary to the interpretation you have so far given it, the post
is not to be taken in a literal sense. Think of such adjectives as
sardonic, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek. Think of such nouns as put-on,
lampoon, skewer.
See if you can figure it out now. And remember, this counts toward
your final grade.
> "My friend recognised that Taylor Kingston may have
> been attempting to offer his sympathy,
I have no sympathy for Goran Tomic or Sam Sloan.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 20:07:32
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>
> > I note that Taylor Kingston has *not* denied that
> > he has refused to describe Stan Booz's 'Nigger Nick'
> > slur as racist.
>
> Yes, let's all get behind Nick for something Stan Booz said 3 years ago.
Doesn't his obsession with getting people to denounce Stan Booz remind
you of someone?
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 19:53:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Nick wrote:
> I note that Taylor Kingston has *not* denied that
> he has refused to describe Stan Booz's 'Nigger Nick'
> slur as racist.
Yes, let's all get behind Nick for something Stan Booz said 3 years ago.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 18:51:41
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > By the way, when, after the 2005 bombings in London,
> > Taylor Kingston wrote a comment about the 'plight of
> > London', I forwarded his post to a friend of mine who
> > often used a London tube station that had been bombed.
> >
> > As far as I can recall, my friend's response began:
> > "What on earth is Taylor Kingston talking about?
> > What 'plight of London'? ..."
>
> Your friend had the right attitude, Nick, and is obviously influenced
> by Nietzschean metaphysics more than Cartesian dualism.
Based on what he has read of Taylor Kingston's posts
in rec.games.chess.*, my friend regards Taylor Kingston
as an arrogant and dishonest writer, who tends to write
on the basis of expediency. That's *not* to say that
my friend and I would agree with many of the criticisms
of Taylor Kingston that have been made by Larry Parr,
Sam Sloan, or Phil Innes.
> Here's the post in question, from 10 July 2005.
> I think it went right over your flat-top:
Without making any comment of my own (I was not
as close as my friend to the London bombing sites),
I forwarded Taylor Kingston's post to my friend.
What I have described was his response, not mine.
> > >Goran Tomic wrote:
> GT: Here is a nice game played on our Championship
>
> TK: Here is an unimportant game played in a minor postal tournament
> 23 years ago: Kingston-McCarty, USCF section 82-V-27: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5
> 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Nc3 Qd8 8.d5 Ne5 9.Nxe5
> 1-0.
>
> Sam Sloan: What is this? Black left a piece hanging on move 8, and
> this is supposed to demonstrate that you are or were a master?
>
> TK: No, it proves Fermat's last theorem and the existence of Zeus. I
> also hoped it would help satisfy Goran Tomic's insatiable demand for
> chess content, a need compared to which the plight of London after the
> recent bombings pales into insignificance.
>
> << end of 10 July 2005 excerpt >>>
>
> Nick:
> > My friend went on to explain that the people in his
> > London neighbourhood were responding to the bombings
> > in a way quite different from how Taylor Kingston
> > apparently ignorantly presumed that they were.
>
> I think certain subtleties in my July 2005 post have eluded our Nick.
Why is Taylor Kingston apparently misrepresenting
what I have described of my friend's response as my
own independent view?
My friend informed me that, as far as he knew,
*there was no 'plight of London'* (his emphasis) to speak of.
He felt that much of the news coverage was overblown.
My friend mentioned that his neighbours and he were
'laughing' (his term) at the bombers' incompetence.
His neighbours and he were not obsessing about the
supposed 'plight of London' (to quote Taylor Kingston).
He seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston had used
that expression and attributed it to ignorance.
Would Taylor Kingston, who was not there, like to
tell my friend that he did not observe what he did?
My friend went on to say that the deaths were statistically
minor in a city of London's great size. He added that he
still felt safer from violent death in London than he would
have felt in some cities in the United States.
Taylor Kingston has snipped what I wrote earlier:
"My friend recognised that Taylor Kingston may have
been attempting to offer his sympathy, but my friend
still seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston should be
writing again on something about which he's ignorant.
I don't live in that London neighbourhood, so I accept
my friend's observations of his neighbours and his
critical judgment of Taylor Kingston's comment."
--Nick
I cannot be quite certain that I would have felt
exactly the same way as my friend if I had
been in his place, but I was not in his place.
I note that Taylor Kingston has *not* denied that
he has refused to describe Stan Booz's 'Nigger Nick'
slur as racist.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 17:15:27
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Nick wrote:
> By the way, when, after the 2005 bombings in London,
> Taylor Kingston wrote a comment about the 'plight of
> London', I forwarded his post to a friend of mine who
> often used a London tube station that had been bombed.
>
> As far as I can recall, my friend's response began:
> "What on earth is Taylor Kingston talking about?
> What 'plight of London'? ..."
Your friend had the right attitude, Nick, and is obviously influenced
by Nietzschean metaphysics more than Cartesian dualism. Here's the post
in question, from 10 July 2005. I think it went right over your
flat-top:
> >Goran Tomic wrote:
GT: Here is a nice game played on our Championship
TK: Here is an unimportant game played in a minor postal tournament
23 years ago: Kingston-McCarty, USCF section 82-V-27: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5
3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Nc3 Qd8 8.d5 Ne5 9.Nxe5
1-0.
Sam Sloan: What is this? Black left a piece hanging on move 8, and
this is supposed to demonstrate that you are or were a master?
TK: No, it proves Fermat's last theorem and the existence of Zeus. I
also hoped it would help satisfy Goran Tomic's insatiable demand for
chess content, a need compared to which the plight of London after the
recent bombings pales into insignificance.
<< end of 10 July 2005 excerpt >>>
Nick:
> My friend went on to explain that the people in his
> London neighbourhood were responding to the bombings
> in a way quite different from how Taylor Kingston
> apparently ignorantly presumed that they were.
I think certain subtleties in my July 2005 post have eluded our Nick.
;-)
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 15:55:37
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > When I wrote " 'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film
> > 'It Happened in Flatbush' ", *of course* I was referring to
> > his appearance as a character rather than as an actor.
For the record, I looked up the film 'It Happened in Flatbush' at
the Internet Movie Database before my first post in this thread.
So I already knew all the information about it at that website.
> > Considering that Sam Sloan (the writer in rec.games.chess.*,
> > not his impersonators) was born in 1944, I would have been
> > astonished if he had appeared as an actor in a 1942 film.
>
> That probably would not stop Sam himself from
> claiming that he appeared in a 1942 film.
For the record, I have strongly criticised Sam Sloan.
But even Sam Sloan should not be criticised for
something that he has not written and not done.
Even Sam Sloan deserves to be treated more fairly
than Taylor Kingston sometimes has treated him.
> > > There was a character named Sam Sloan in that film,
> > > but he was played by William Frawley,
> >
> > Why did Taylor Kingston write 'but'?
>
> Don't worry, Nick. I was only acting on orders from
> those who control the secret conspiracy against you.
That sounds like Taylor Kingston's usual trolling rhetoric
against Goran Tomic. For the record, I have strongly
criticised Goran Tomic for his treatment of some other writers.
Some other writers also have treated Goran Tomic unfairly,
however, sometimes personally attacking him on account
of his nationality or ethnicity. I cannot be fairly described
as a general admirer or supporter of Goran Tomic.
"Thanks for being my Nigger Nick."
--Stan Booz
Taylor Kingston has described that 'Nigger Nick' slur
only as 'blunt' and 'tactless', while refusing (at least
so far, after many months) to call it racist.
Racism is a reality, though some white Americans
such as Taylor Kingston (I have seen his photo)
apparently like to minimise the extent of racism.
I already know that many white Americans
like to congratulate one another about their
self-perceived absence of racism.
My friends of white European ancestry in the UK and
the USA have let me know that it's evident to them
that racism exists among some writers in RGC*
and that racism has influenced the personal attacks
being written by some writers in RGC* against me.
Their hatred of me does me more honour.
By the way, when, after the 2005 bombings in London,
Taylor Kingston wrote a comment about the 'plight of
London', I forwarded his post to a friend of mine who
often used a London tube station that had been bombed.
As far as I can recall, my friend's response began:
"What on earth is Taylor Kingston talking about?
What 'plight of London'? ..."
My friend went on to explain that the people in his
London neighbourhood were responding to the bombings
in a way quite different from how Taylor Kingston
apparently ignorantly presumed that they were.
My friend recognised that Taylor Kingston may have
been attempting to offer his sympathy, but my friend
still seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston should be
writing again on something about which he's ignorant.
I don't live in that London neighbourhood, so I accept
my friend's observations of his neighbours and his
critical judgment of Taylor Kingston's comment.
That friend of mine and others have been amused
by Taylor Kingston's ignorant and arrogant
pontifications on other subjects, such as
the history of the Second World War, and his
disingenuous attempts to cover up his errors.
I regard Larry Parr, Sam Sloan, and Phil Innes
with deep disdain. But even though they often
are dishonest and wrong, that does *not* mean
that Taylor Kingston cannot sometimes be
dishonest and wrong. And I already have
cited evidence of Taylor Kingston being
dishonest and wrong in some cases.
Some other readers have been able to discern
that the reality of Taylor Kingston as a writer falls
quite short of how he wishes others to perceive him.
"You can only be destroyed by believing that you
really are what the white world calls a nigger."
--James Baldwin
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 16:31:19
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
On 12 Jun 2006 15:55:37 -0700, "Nick" <[email protected] >
wrote:
<much whining drivel about Goran Tomic, Stan Booz, Parr, Sloan, Innes,
recent London Bombings, "white" Americans, Nick's "white" friends,
World War 2, Kingston's other writings, James Baldwin, etc., snipped >
Having been shown to have played the fool, Nick tries to distract us
by playing the race card...again. "For the record", he sounds like a
*broken* record.
I realize we rgc* folk are an insensitive lot, so,
Please forgive those of us who find it hard to connect this diatribe
with the earlier thread topic about "Sam Sloan" in the movies, or even
with Nick's earlier carping about Taylor Kingston's use of the word
"but".
Please forgive those of us who find it difficult to accept without
question an anonymouse's autobiographical claims of racially based
persecution.
Please forgive those of us who find it difficult to accept as evidence
said anonymouse's unverifiable reports of conversations with unnamed
third parties.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 12:26:05
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Nick wrote:
> I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.
So do most of us here. So why bother telling us about some stupid movie
we can look up if we want?
Don't you have some admirers elsewhere you can entertain with your
supposed bon mots?
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 05:52:23
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Nick wrote:
> When I wrote " 'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film
> 'It Happened in Flatbush' ", *of course* I was referring to
> his appearance as a character rather than as an actor.
>
> Considering that Sam Sloan (the writer in rec.games.chess.*,
> not his impersonators) was born in 1944, I would have been
> astonished if he had appeared as an actor in a 1942 film.
That probably would not stop Sam himself from claiming that he
appeared in a 1942 film.
> > There was a character named Sam Sloan in that film,
> > but he was played by William Frawley,
>
> Why did Taylor Kingston write 'but'?
Don't worry, Nick. I was only acting on orders from those who control
the secret conspiracy against you.
> 'But' as opposed
> to what?
Exactly. It's sort of like Nietzsche's "Jenseits von G=FCte und
B=F6se."
> Did Taylor Kingston suspect that I believed
> that Sam Sloan was an actor in that 1942 film?
You are suspected of many things, Nick.
> Why did Taylor Kingston simply not write, "There was
> a character named Sam Sloan in that film, *who* was
> played by William Frawley" (which would *not* have
> been new information for me) ?
That was not part of my orders.
> > better known as Fred Mertz from the
> > "I Love Lucy" TV show.
>
> He may be better known as that character in the
> memories of people who watched that television show.
Which is many millions more than ever watched "It Happened in
Flatbush."
> > Frawley also was excellent as the judge's back-room
> > political advisor in "Miracle on 34th Street."
>
> I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.
You mean you've never seen the movie? No wonder you're so crabby!
Even though it's not Christmas season, go and watch it right now. It
will cheer you you up right down to your toes!
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 18:37:01
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> > > > Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
> > > > I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?
> > >
> > > You mean Sam is actually a mutant? That would explain a lot.
> >
> > 'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film 'It Happened in Flatbush'.
When I wrote " 'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film
'It Happened in Flatbush' ", *of course* I was referring to
his appearance as a character rather than as an actor.
Considering that Sam Sloan (the writer in rec.games.chess.*,
not his impersonators) was born in 1944, I would have been
astonished if he had appeared as an actor in a 1942 film.
> There was a character named Sam Sloan in that film,
> but he was played by William Frawley,
Why did Taylor Kingston write 'but'? 'But' as opposed
to what? Did Taylor Kingston suspect that I believed
that Sam Sloan was an actor in that 1942 film?
Why did Taylor Kingston simply not write, "There was
a character named Sam Sloan in that film, *who* was
played by William Frawley" (which would *not* have
been new information for me) ?
> better known as Fred Mertz from the
> "I Love Lucy" TV show.
He may be better known as that character in the
memories of people who watched that television show.
> Frawley also was excellent as the judge's back-room
> political advisor in "Miracle on 34th Street."
I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 16:58:08
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Nick wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> > > Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
> > > I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?
> >
> > You mean Sam is actually a mutant? That would explain a lot.
>
> 'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film 'It Happened in Flatbush'.
There was a character named Sam Sloan in that film, but he was played
by William Frawley, better known as Fred Mertz from the "I Love Lucy"
TV show. Frawley also was excellent as the judge's back-room political
advisor in "Miracle on 34th Street."
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 10:19:52
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Hi Taylor:
Speaking of chess player/chess personality filmography, it would
be hard to beat the activity of Sean Whalen:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0923490/
If memory serves, Sean had a huge chess links web site back
in the middle-to-late 90's...
Kind Regards,
John
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> > > > Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
> > > > I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?
> > >
> > > You mean Sam is actually a mutant? That would explain a lot.
> >
> > 'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film 'It Happened in Flatbush'.
>
> Actually, it appears our Sammy has "officially" appeared in at least
> one film:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0806012/
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2006 09:06:12
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Nick wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> > > Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
> > > I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?
> >
> > You mean Sam is actually a mutant? That would explain a lot.
>
> 'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film 'It Happened in Flatbush'.
Actually, it appears our Sammy has "officially" appeared in at least
one film:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0806012/
|
| |
Date: 10 Jun 2006 20:37:38
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> > Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
> > I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?
>
> You mean Sam is actually a mutant? That would explain a lot.
'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film 'It Happened in Flatbush'.
Here's an excerpt from a 'Publishers Weekly' review of the
2001 novel by Robert Wise, 'The Empty Coffin: A Sam and
Vera Sloan Mystery': "There's been a murder in Colorado
Springs, Colo., but the body is missing. This doesn't faze
Det. Sam Sloan, who has built his reputation on his infallibility."
|
| |
Date: 10 Jun 2006 19:24:59
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
>
> I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?
You mean Sam is actually a mutant? That would explain a lot.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 23:58:22
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
"Nick" <[email protected] > writes:
> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>> "Nick" <[email protected]> writes:
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >> Nick wrote:
>> >> > I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.
>> >>
>> >> So do most of us here. So why bother telling us about
>> >> some stupid movie we can look up if we want?
>> >
>> > In his post creating this thread, Kenneth Sloan mentioned
>> > that a character named 'Sam Sloan' appeared in a recent film.
>>
>> False.
>
> In his post creating this thread, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>
> "Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
> I wonder if anyone else noticed the 'Sam Sloan' character?"
> --Kenneth Sloan
>
> As far as I know, 'X3: The Last Stand' refers to the
> 2006 film described in the Internet Movie Database
> as 'X-Men: The Last Stand'. I have not seen this film,
> but I believe that it's accurate for me to describe it as
> 'a recent film', which is what I did.
>
> Strictly speaking, Kenneth Sloan wrote a question,
> "I wonder if anyone else noticed the 'Sam Sloan'
> character?", implying that the 'Sam Sloan' character
> appeared in the film that he had just watched.
>
> Again, I have not seen this film, and so I assumed
> that "the 'Sam Sloan' character" mentioned by
> Kenneth Sloan was named 'Sam Sloan'.
oops.
> I regret it if my assumption was incorrect.
I suspect that by now we *all* regret your incorrect assumption.
>
> Perhaps Kenneth Sloan was referring to a
> character whom he perceived as comparable to
> Sam Sloan (the writer in rec.games.chess.*)
> but who was *not* "named 'Sam Sloan'".
> If that's what Kenneth Sloan meant, then
> his original post did not make that clear
> enough to me.
>
My fault. I was writing for an audience of normal intelligence.
I also assumed that most folk attempting a reply might actually have
seen the film in question first. My suspiscion is that a normally
intelligent person familiar with both this newsgroup *and* the film
would make the necessary connection. I did not reckon on the
(regretably common) tendency for some posters to forge ahead without
benefit of knowledge.
> If Kenneth Sloan would like to make a distinction
> between his question implying that "the 'Sam
> Sloan' character" appeared in the film and my
> writing that Kenneth Sloan had mentioned
> that "a character named 'Sam Sloan'" had
> appeared in that film, then I apologise for
> my assumption (described above) and for
> my unintentional misrepresentation
> of exactly what Kenneth Sloan wrote.
Apology accepted. Try not to let it happen again.
>
> --Nick
>
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 13:16:34
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan appears in X3
|
"Nick" <[email protected] > writes:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Nick wrote:
>> > I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.
>>
>> So do most of us here. So why bother telling us about
>> some stupid movie we can look up if we want?
>
> In his post creating this thread, Kenneth Sloan mentioned
> that a character named 'Sam Sloan' appeared in a recent film.
False.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
|
