| |
Main
Date: 14 Jul 2006 11:55:44
From: London Chess
Subject: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
Sam Sloan is a known convicted felon. He admitted to having sex with
minors. He's also admitted to commit fraud and had his securities
license revoked. He's a menace to chess in America. He's probably the
biggest chess bum on this planet. Should this bloke be allowed to run
for the EB?
Tony
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2006 08:33:56
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
London Chess wrote (14 Jul 2006 13:24:55 -0700):
7 ... Shame on [Larry Parr] for defending such a despicable
7 bloke [(Sam Sloan)].
_
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (14 Jul 2006 16:06:50 -0700):
7 Shame on [London Chess] for being such a despicable,
7 anonimous coward.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 13:36:31 -0700) some stuff about
Sam Sloan and Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and added:
7 ... As far as I know, Louis Blair has chosen not to
7 criticise Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. ...
_
I reposted (15 Jul 2006 16:02:34 -0700) a comment:
7 "If Nick has checked the record at all, he
7 should have noticed that, for the most part,
7 I have been ignoring Wlodzimierz
7 Holsztynski for years. I do not make an
7 effort to read his notes, although I may do
7 so if he comments on an issue that I have
7 chosen to follow. ... Lack of time makes it
7 impractical for me to follow everyone ..."
7 - Louis Blair (14 Jul 2006 20:37:11 -0700)
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 ...Thanks to Louis Blair for clarifying the facts
7 about his record of not reading and not responding
7 to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.
7
7 By the way, I have noticed that some posts have
7 not been appearing on my newsreader in a timely
7 manner, if at all. I can infer that those posts exist
7 only by noticing some other posts responding to
7 them later.
7
7 I should add that my lack of time also makes it
7 impractical for me to follow all of Louis Blair's posts.
7 It tends to be easier to notice that Louis Blair has
7 written about something rather than to notice that
7 Louis Blair has been avoiding writing about something.
7
7 Also, I tend not to read RGCP posts unless they
7 have been cross-posted to RGCM.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 I suggest that Nick make more use of Google when
7 attacking others publicly. I suggest that Nick explicitly
7 mention his limitations when attacking others publicly.
7 I suggest that Nick apologize for failure to mention
7 his limitations when it would have been appropriate
7 to mention them.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I owe no apology to Louis Blair in this case.
_
Nick also wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 Caveat: I have lacked the time and the interest to read
7 everything in the past few days that has been written to
7 me or about me. Also, some thread(s) might not be
7 updating promptly on my newsreader.
7 ...
7 It seems quite unusual for a writer who's in a dispute in
7 RGCM to thank his adversary for 'clarifying the facts'.
7 As far as I can tell, Louis Blair has not appreciated that
7 I have done so.
_
Nick apparently considers it acceptable for him to drag my
name into a discussion that did not involve me and publicly
pester me about a subject without properly researching the
matter or admitting at the time that he had not properly
researched the matter. Instead of thanking me for my
note, Nick should have been apologizing that he made
it necessary for me to post twice what I should not have
had to post even once. I do not "appreciate" this state
of affairs and I am not going to pretend to do so.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 Louis Blair practises his snipping to the extent that he
7 refuses even to quote my question.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 Nick produces no reason why I should quote his question.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I make a point usually to permit the other person to have
7 his or her complete say, however disagreeable I may find it.
_
Nick does not need me to "permit" him to have his complete
say. He can post whatever he wants.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I doubt that Louis Blair could ever understand why I do that,
7 so I shall not attempt to explain it to him.
_
Nick produced no reason why I should quote his question and
he continues to produce no reason. Of course, if he did
produce a reason, everyone could make a judgment on its
merits. Nick avoids that for now.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 In contrast to Louis Blair, I do not recall that I have snipped
7 anything that he has written in any recent exchanges with
7 him, even when I have found much of it to be disagreeable.
_
Nick is living in dreamland if he imagines that anyone has
an obligation to imitate what he has chosen to do in
"recent exchanges". Nick certainly does not feel obliged
to imitate my behavior. If he did, he would not, for example,
claim to have a reason (for a position) and keep it to
himself on the grounds that I would not understand.
_
Also, if Nick's true position is that I should not snip "anything"
in his note, he should (if he wants to imitate my behavior)
state that position openly and clearly.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 As I recall, many diverse writers have complained about
7 Louis Blair's extremely selective and often disingenuous
7 snipping, which tends to remove much of the context from
7 his quotations.
7
7 For instance, k Houlsby expressed his support for
7 many of Louis Blair's criticisms of Tim Hanke. Yet k
7 Houlsby commented to me that he regarded Louis Blair
7 as a sometimes dishonest writer on account of Louis
7 Blair's disingenuous snipping posts out-of-context.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 I see nothing "disingenuous" about my decision to not
7 quote Nick's question. As for the past:
7
7 "in my opinion, the priy appropriate
7 way to evaluate the merits of a criticism
7 is to examine the evidence identified in
7 support of the criticism." - Louis Blair
7 (14 Jul 2006 20:37:11 -0700)
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 As I recall, k Houlsby had no reason to be biased
7 against Louis Blair.
_
But, of course, what we are seeing is Nick's words, and
who can say how biased he is? In any event, k
Houlsby is not a god who makes no errors. If Nick
imitated my behavior, he would provide a quote of k
Houlsby or not mention the matter in the first place.
_
Referring (I think) to my decision to not quote Nick's
question, Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 My ["disingenuous snipping"] comment was general
7 and not pertaining only to this particular example.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would not bring up a
charge like "disengenuous" in a discussion, unless
he either (1) clearly indicated that he was not referring
to any action in the current discussion, or (2) clearly
identified at least one specific action (that had
appeared in the discussion) and explained why it
should be considered to be "disingenuous".
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I lack the time and the inclination to reprint all of the
7 comments that have been written about Louis Blair's
7 perceived or real dishonesty with regard to his
7 disingenuous snipping of posts out-of-context.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would not consider it
worthwhile to contemplate the compilation of a list of
comments about "perceived or real dishonesty".
Obviously, only the supposed "real dishonesty" is
deserving of attention.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 As far as I can recall, Vince Hart, a writer whom I respect
7 in general, ...
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would not make a statement
like this without mentioning some of his past comments:
_
"... Vince Hart's continuing reiteration of
his accusations, without citing sufficient
supporting evidence, against Louis Blair
should *not* be enough to convince me (or
some other readers of my acquaintance, who
have no interest in USCF politics) that his
accusations against Louis Blair must be true.
..." - Nick (2 Apr 2005 16:48:34 -0800)
_
_
"Like Louis Blair has found in some other
cases of dispute with Vince Hart, evidently,
I do *not* expect Vince Hart to be
intellectually honest when engaging in
some arguments. ...
...
Thanks to Vince Hart for corroborating, at
least in part, Louis Blair's very critical view
of him as a writer." - Nick (23 Oct 2005
21:41:44 -0700)
_
_
"... I have forwarded my previous exchanges
with Vince Hart in this thread to a friend of
mine (who's very critical of Eric Schiller's
chess books). He responded that he can
understand why Louis Blair, evidently, and
I have concluded that Vince Hart's deeply
dishonest. ..." - Nick (25 Oct 2005
19:29:32 -0700)
_
(I am not mentioning these quotes with the goal of
demonstrating anything negative about Vince Hart. I
would hope that people would feel it appropriate to
inspect the evidence before coming to a judgment.)
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 [Vince Hart] has strongly denounced Louis Blair as a
7 dishonest and hypocritical writer. As time has gone
7 on, I have become more convinced that Vince Hart's
7 substantially, though not necessarily always, right
7 about Louis Blair as a writer in rec.games.chess.*
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would be clear about
whether or not he ever found Vince Hart to be right
about any specific example of dishonest writing and/or
hypocritical writing.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 As far as I can recall, Klgore once offered me his
7 sympathy and advised me in effect that it would be
7 fruitless for me to continue disputing with Louis
7 Blair on account of Louis Blair's continuing
7 disingenuous snipping.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would provide a quote
of Klgore or not mention the matter in the first place.
I do not know what discussion I had with Klgore, but
here is one sumy of the matter that he posted:
_
"... If I have a bias it is that I find Dr. Blair
objectionable when he's in 'pendant'
mode; I have had one extended
'discussion', if that word applies, with
him and it devolved into a definitional
battle concerning common words and
it was unpleasant and I bailed given his
obstinence (mine of course being totally
acceptable). ..." - klgore (12 Oct 2005
06:46:52 -0700)
_
Note the complete absence of any reference to
"disingenuous snipping" even though he set out to
describe his "bias" about finding me "objectionable".
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 Perhaps some writers admire Louis Blair's unique
7 style of posting, consisting mostly of heavily
7 snipped quotations, but I don't recall reading their
7 comments of admiration.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would clearly describe
where (if anywhere) and why he perceives "disingenuous"
behavior in this discussion, instead of drifting off into talk
about "admiration".
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 It seemed to me that *in the context in [which I] had
7 written and which I then clarified* (Louis Blair has
7 preferred to snip that context and ignore my
7 clarification), ...
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 I do not know what "context" Nick is writing about.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would give at least
one specific example of this "context" and explain
why I should have quoted it.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 As for the clarification, here is the sequence of events:
7
7 (1) Nick commented on 13 Jul 2006 17:39:20 -0700.
7
7 (2) I commented on 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700.
7
7 (3) Nick clarified on 13 Jul 2006 18:52:02 -0700.
7
7 I had nothing to say about Nick's clarification. Why
7 should I quote it? People could read it in Nick's note
7 without any help from me. It has nothing to do with
7 the meaning of my 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700 note.
7 ... at the time that I posted that note, I had no
7 knowledge of the clarification that was still about
7 45 minutes in the future.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would explain why I
should have quoted his "clarification" or clearly admit
that he has no reason.
_
Nick wrote (14 Jul 2006 14:59:50 -0700):
7 ... As I recall, in some earlier exchanges with me, Louis
7 Blair has intentionally snipped, ignored, and distorted
7 the evidence that he's wrong. ...
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would indicate clearly
whether or not he claims that such behavior is taking
place in the current discussion, identify at least one
specific statement of mine that is wrong, and identify
at least one specific piece of relevant evidence that I
"intentionally snipped, ignored," and/or "distorted".
_
Nick wrote (14 Jul 2006 15:19:34 -0700):
7 ... Louis Blair has written a post here in which he has
7 referred in part to the history of my 'communications'
7 with Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. Then Louis Blair
7 seems to object to my responding by mentioning
7 more of that history. ...
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would specifically identify
whatever "seems" to indicate such an objection (or admit
that he can not and apologize).
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2006 08:52:43
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
"London Chess" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sam Sloan is a known convicted felon. He admitted to having sex with
> minors. He's also admitted to commit fraud and had his securities
> license revoked. He's a menace to chess in America. He's probably the
> biggest chess bum on this planet. Should this bloke be allowed to run
> for the EB?
Yes.
By the way, are you truly scandalized by Sam's behavior, or jealous of it?
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2006 02:40:31
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 It seemed to me that *in the context in [which I] had
7 written and which I then clarified* (Louis Blair has
7 preferred to snip that context and ignore my
7 clarification), ...
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 I do not know what "context" Nick is writing about.
7 As for the clarification, here is the sequence of events:
7
7 (1) Nick commented on 13 Jul 2006 17:39:20 -0700.
7
7 (2) I commented on 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700.
7
7 (3) Nick clarified on 13 Jul 2006 18:52:02 -0700.
7
7 I had nothing to say about Nick's clarification. Why
7 should I quote it? People could read it in Nick's note
7 without any help from me. It has nothing to do with
7 the meaning of my 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700 note.
7 My time-travelling DeLorian was not working that
7 day, so, at the time that I posted that note, I had no
7 knowledge of the clarification that was still about
7 45 minutes in the future.
_
With regard to "context",
Mike Murray wrote (Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:33:40 -0700):
7 Jeez, Blair, haven't you learned yet? Context is
7 everything. That is, everything Nick has written in the
7 thread. Snipping a single word is the act of a troll.
7 The disdain-o-meter is rising.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:34:37 -0700):
7 In contrast to Louis Blair who has snipped much of what
7 I have written, I have snipped nothing of what Louis Blair
7 has written in any of our recent exchanges.
_
This does not really address the issue of Nick's charge of me
snipping "context". Nick should give at least one specific
example of this snipped "context" and explain why I should
have quoted it.
_
If, in reality, Nick's position is that "everything" in a Nick note
is "context" that should be quoted by me, then Nick should
state this clearly.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:34:37 -0700):
7 It's wrong for anyone to insinuate that I have been much
7 snipping Louis Blair's posts while objecting to Louis Blair's
7 much snipping of my posts.
_
I do not believe that Mike Murray was trying to insinuate that
Nick has been "much snipping" my posts. It appears to me
that he was trying to write a parody of Nick's attitude. Look
again:
_
"Context is everything. That is, everything Nick
has written in the thread. Snipping a single word
is the act of a troll. The disdain-o-meter is rising."
- Mike Murray (Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:33:40 -0700)
_
Nick wrote (14 Jul 2006 14:59:50 -0700):
7 ... As I recall, in some earlier exchanges with me, Louis
7 Blair has intentionally snipped, ignored, and distorted
7 the evidence that he's wrong. ...
_
Nick should indicate clearly whether or not he claims
that such behavior is taking place in the current
discussion, identify at least one specific statement of
mine that is wrong, and identify at least one specific
piece of relevant evidence that I "intentionally snipped,
ignored," and/or "distorted".
_
Nick wrote (14 Jul 2006 15:19:34 -0700):
7 ... Louis Blair has written a post here in which he has
7 referred in part to the history of my 'communications'
7 with Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. Then Louis Blair
7 seems to object to my responding by mentioning
7 more of that history. ...
_
Nick should specifically identify whatever "seems" to
indicate such an objection (or admit that he can not and
apologize).
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jul 2006 06:57:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
On 17 Jul 2006 02:40:31 -0700, "Louis Blair" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>I do not believe that Mike Murray was trying to insinuate that
>Nick has been "much snipping" my posts. It appears to me
>that he was trying to write a parody of Nick's attitude. Look
>again:
>_
> "Context is everything. That is, everything Nick
> has written in the thread. Snipping a single word
> is the act of a troll. The disdain-o-meter is rising."
> - Mike Murray (Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:33:40 -0700)
>
Correct interpretation. Taken as a straightforward assertion by its
target, my comment was only ginally successful as parody. Oh,
well, parodying Nick is like parodying William McGonagle.
.
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2006 02:37:26
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
London Chess wrote (14 Jul 2006 13:24:55 -0700):
7 ... Shame on [Larry Parr] for defending such a despicable
7 bloke [(Sam Sloan)].
_
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (14 Jul 2006 16:06:50 -0700):
7 Shame on [London Chess] for being such a despicable,
7 anonimous coward.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 13:36:31 -0700) some stuff about
Sam Sloan and Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and added:
7 ... As far as I know, Louis Blair has chosen not to
7 criticise Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. ...
_
I reposted (15 Jul 2006 16:02:34 -0700) a comment:
7 "If Nick has checked the record at all, he
7 should have noticed that, for the most part,
7 I have been ignoring Wlodzimierz
7 Holsztynski for years. I do not make an
7 effort to read his notes, although I may do
7 so if he comments on an issue that I have
7 chosen to follow. ... Lack of time makes it
7 impractical for me to follow everyone ..."
7 - Louis Blair (14 Jul 2006 20:37:11 -0700)
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 ...Thanks to Louis Blair for clarifying the facts
7 about his record of not reading and not responding
7 to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.
7
7 By the way, I have noticed that some posts have
7 not been appearing on my newsreader in a timely
7 manner, if at all. I can infer that those posts exist
7 only by noticing some other posts responding to
7 them later.
7
7 I should add that my lack of time also makes it
7 impractical for me to follow all of Louis Blair's posts.
7 It tends to be easier to notice that Louis Blair has
7 written about something rather than to notice that
7 Louis Blair has been avoiding writing about something.
7
7 Also, I tend not to read RGCP posts unless they
7 have been cross-posted to RGCM.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 I suggest that Nick make more use of Google when
7 attacking others publicly. I suggest that Nick explicitly
7 mention his limitations when attacking others publicly.
7 I suggest that Nick apologize for failure to mention
7 his limitations when it would have been appropriate
7 to mention them.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I owe no apology to Louis Blair in this case.
_
Nick also wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 Caveat: I have lacked the time and the interest to read
7 everything in the past few days that has been written to
7 me or about me. Also, some thread(s) might not be
7 updating promptly on my newsreader.
7 ...
7 It seems quite unusual for a writer who's in a dispute in
7 RGCM to thank his adversary for 'clarifying the facts'.
7 As far as I can tell, Louis Blair has not appreciated that
7 I have done so.
_
Nick apparently considers it acceptable for him to drag my
name into a discussion that did not involve me and publicly
pester me about a subject without properly researching the
matter or admitting at the time that he had not properly
researched the matter. Instead of thanking me for my
note, Nick should have been apologizing that he made
it necessary for me to post twice what I should not have
had to post even once. I do not "appreciate" this state
of affairs and I am not going to pretend to do so.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 Louis Blair practises his snipping to the extent that he
7 refuses even to quote my question.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 Nick produces no reason why I should quote his question.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I make a point usually to permit the other person to have
7 his or her complete say, however disagreeable I may find it.
_
Nick does not need me to "permit" him to have his complete
say. He can post whatever he wants.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I doubt that Louis Blair could ever understand why I do that,
7 so I shall not attempt to explain it to him.
_
Nick produced no reason why I should quote his question and
he continues to produce no reason. Of course, if he did
produce a reason, everyone could make a judgment on its
merits. Nick avoids that for now.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 In contrast to Louis Blair, I do not recall that I have snipped
7 anything that he has written in any recent exchanges with
7 him, even when I have found much of it to be disagreeable.
_
Nick is living in dreamland if he imagines that anyone has
an obligation to imitate what he has chosen to do in
"recent exchanges". Nick certainly does not feel obliged
to imitate my behavior. If he did, he would not, for example,
claim to have a reason (for a position) and keep it to
himself on the grounds that I would not understand.
_
Also, if Nick's true position is that I should not snip "anything"
in his note, he should (if he wants to imitate my behavior)
state that position openly and clearly.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 As I recall, many diverse writers have complained about
7 Louis Blair's extremely selective and often disingenuous
7 snipping, which tends to remove much of the context from
7 his quotations.
7
7 For instance, k Houlsby expressed his support for
7 many of Louis Blair's criticisms of Tim Hanke. Yet k
7 Houlsby commented to me that he regarded Louis Blair
7 as a sometimes dishonest writer on account of Louis
7 Blair's disingenuous snipping posts out-of-context.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 I see nothing "disingenuous" about my decision to not
7 quote Nick's question. As for the past:
7
7 "in my opinion, the priy appropriate
7 way to evaluate the merits of a criticism
7 is to examine the evidence identified in
7 support of the criticism." - Louis Blair
7 (14 Jul 2006 20:37:11 -0700)
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 As I recall, k Houlsby had no reason to be biased
7 against Louis Blair.
_
But, of course, what we are seeing is Nick's words, and
who can say how biased he is? In any event, k
Houlsby is not a god who makes no errors. If Nick
imitated my behavior, he would provide a quote of k
Houlsby or not mention the matter in the first place.
_
Referring (I think) to my my decision to not quote Nick's
question, Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 My ["disingenuous"] comment was general and not
7 pertaining only to this particular example.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would not bring up a
charge like "disengenuous" in a discussion, unless
he either (1) clearly indicated that he was not referring
to any action in the current discussion, or (2) clearly
identified at least one specific action (that had
appeared in the discussion) and explained why it
should be considered to be "disingenuous".
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I lack the time and the inclination to reprint all of the
7 comments that have been written about Louis Blair's
7 perceived or real dishonesty with regard to his
7 disingenuous snipping of posts out-of-context.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would not consider it
worthwhile to contemplate the compilation of a list of
comments about "perceived or real dishonesty".
Obviously, only the supposed "real dishonesty" is
deserving of attention.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 As far as I can recall, Vince Hart, a writer whom I respect
7 in general, ...
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would not make a statement
like this without mentioning some of his past comments:
_
"... Vince Hart's continuing reiteration of
his accusations, without citing sufficient
supporting evidence, against Louis Blair
should *not* be enough to convince me (or
some other readers of my acquaintance, who
have no interest in USCF politics) that his
accusations against Louis Blair must be true.
..." - Nick (2 Apr 2005 16:48:34 -0800)
_
_
"Like Louis Blair has found in some other
cases of dispute with Vince Hart, evidently,
I do *not* expect Vince Hart to be
intellectually honest when engaging in
some arguments. ...
...
Thanks to Vince Hart for corroborating, at
least in part, Louis Blair's very critical view
of him as a writer." - Nick (23 Oct 2005
21:41:44 -0700)
_
_
"... I have forwarded my previous exchanges
with Vince Hart in this thread to a friend of
mine (who's very critical of Eric Schiller's
chess books). He responded that he can
understand why Louis Blair, evidently, and
I have concluded that Vince Hart's deeply
dishonest. ..." - Nick (25 Oct 2005
19:29:32 -0700)
_
(I am not mentioning these quotes with the goal of
demonstrating anything negative about Vince Hart. I
would hope that people would feel it appropriate to
inspect the evidence before coming to a judgment.)
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 [Vince Hart] has strongly denounced Louis Blair as a
7 dishonest and hypocritical writer. As time has gone
7 on, I have become more convinced that Vince Hart's
7 substantially, though not necessarily always, right
7 about Louis Blair as a writer in rec.games.chess.*
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would be clear about
whether or not he ever found Vince Hart to be right
about any specific example of dishonest writing and/or
hypocritical writing.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 As far as I can recall, Klgore once offered me his
7 sympathy and advised me in effect that it would be
7 fruitless for me to continue disputing with Louis
7 Blair on account of Louis Blair's continuing
7 disingenuous snipping.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would provide a quote
of Klgore or not mention the matter in the first place.
I do not know what discussion I had with Klgore, but
here is one sumy of the matter that he posted:
_
"... If I have a bias it is that I find Dr. Blair
objectionable when he's in 'pendant'
mode; I have had one extended
'discussion', if that word applies, with
him and it devolved into a definitional
battle concerning common words and
it was unpleasant and I bailed given his
obstinence (mine of course being totally
acceptable). ..." - klgore (12 Oct 2005
06:46:52 -0700)
_
Note the complete absence of any reference to
"disingenuous snipping" even though he set out to
describe his "bias" about finding me "objectionable".
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 Perhaps some writers admire Louis Blair's unique
7 style of posting, consisting mostly of heavily
7 snipped quotations, but I don't recall reading their
7 comments of admiration.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would clearly describe
where (if anywhere) and why he perceives "disingenuous"
behavior in this discussion, instead of drifting off into talk
about "admiration".
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 It seemed to me that *in the context in [which I] had
7 written and which I then clarified* (Louis Blair has
7 preferred to snip that context and ignore my
7 clarification), ...
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 I do not know what "context" Nick is writing about.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would give at least
one specific example of this "context" and explain
why I should have quoted it.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 As for the clarification, here is the sequence of events:
7
7 (1) Nick commented on 13 Jul 2006 17:39:20 -0700.
7
7 (2) I commented on 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700.
7
7 (3) Nick clarified on 13 Jul 2006 18:52:02 -0700.
7
7 I had nothing to say about Nick's clarification. Why
7 should I quote it? People could read it in Nick's note
7 without any help from me. It has nothing to do with
7 the meaning of my 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700 note.
7 ... at the time that I posted that note, I had no
7 knowledge of the clarification that was still about
7 45 minutes in the future.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would explain why I
should have quoted his "clarification" or clearly admit
that he has no reason.
_
Nick wrote (14 Jul 2006 14:59:50 -0700):
7 ... As I recall, in some earlier exchanges with me, Louis
7 Blair has intentionally snipped, ignored, and distorted
7 the evidence that he's wrong. ...
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would indicate clearly
whether or not he claims that such behavior is taking
place in the current discussion, identify at least one
specific statement of mine that is wrong, and identify
at least one specific piece of relevant evidence that I
"intentionally snipped, ignored," and/or "distorted".
_
Nick wrote (14 Jul 2006 15:19:34 -0700):
7 ... Louis Blair has written a post here in which he has
7 referred in part to the history of my 'communications'
7 with Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. Then Louis Blair
7 seems to object to my responding by mentioning
7 more of that history. ...
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would specifically identify
whatever "seems" to indicate such an objection (or admit
that he can not and apologize).
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2006 01:12:45
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
London Chess wrote (14 Jul 2006 13:24:55 -0700):
7 ... Shame on [Larry Parr] for defending such a despicable
7 bloke [(Sam Sloan)].
_
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (14 Jul 2006 16:06:50 -0700):
7 Shame on [London Chess] for being such a despicable,
7 anonimous coward.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 13:36:31 -0700) some stuff about
Sam Sloan and Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and added:
7 ... As far as I know, Louis Blair has chosen not to
7 criticise Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. ...
_
I reposted (15 Jul 2006 16:02:34 -0700) a comment:
7 "If Nick has checked the record at all, he
7 should have noticed that, for the most part,
7 I have been ignoring Wlodzimierz
7 Holsztynski for years. I do not make an
7 effort to read his notes, although I may do
7 so if he comments on an issue that I have
7 chosen to follow. ... Lack of time makes it
7 impractical for me to follow everyone ..."
7 - Louis Blair (14 Jul 2006 20:37:11 -0700)
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 ...Thanks to Louis Blair for clarifying the facts
7 about his record of not reading and not responding
7 to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.
7
7 By the way, I have noticed that some posts have
7 not been appearing on my newsreader in a timely
7 manner, if at all. I can infer that those posts exist
7 only by noticing some other posts responding to
7 them later.
7
7 I should add that my lack of time also makes it
7 impractical for me to follow all of Louis Blair's posts.
7 It tends to be easier to notice that Louis Blair has
7 written about something rather than to notice that
7 Louis Blair has been avoiding writing about something.
7
7 Also, I tend not to read RGCP posts unless they
7 have been cross-posted to RGCM.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 I suggest that Nick make more use of Google when
7 attacking others publicly. I suggest that Nick explicitly
7 mention his limitations when attacking others publicly.
7 I suggest that Nick apologize for failure to mention
7 his limitations when it would have been appropriate
7 to mention them.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I owe no apology to Louis Blair in this case.
_
Nick also wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 Caveat: I have lacked the time and the interest to read
7 everything in the past few days that has been written to
7 me or about me. Also, some thread(s) might not be
7 updating promptly on my newsreader.
7 ...
7 It seems quite unusual for a writer who's in a dispute in
7 RGCM to thank his adversary for 'clarifying the facts'.
7 As far as I can tell, Louis Blair has not appreciated that
7 I have done so.
_
Nick apparently considers it acceptable for him to drag my
name into a discussion that did not involve me and publicly
pester me about a subject without properly researching the
matter or admitting at the time that he had not properly
researched the matter. Instead of thanking me for my
note, Nick should have been apologizing that he made
it necessary for me to post twice what I should not have
had to post even once. I do not "appreciate" this state
of affairs and I am not going to pretend to do so.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 Louis Blair practises his snipping to the extent that he
7 refuses even to quote my question.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 Nick produces no reason why I should quote his question.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I make a point usually to permit the other person to have
7 his or her complete say, however disagreeable I may find it.
_
Nick does not need me to "permit" him to have his complete
say. He can post whatever he wants.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I doubt that Louis Blair could ever understand why I do that,
7 so I shall not attempt to explain it to him.
_
Nick produced no reason why I should quote his question and
he continues to produce no reason. Of course, if he did
produce a reason, everyone could make a judgment on its
merits. Nick avoids that for now.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 In contrast to Louis Blair, I do not recall that I have snipped
7 anything that he has written in any recent exchanges with
7 him, even when I have found much of it to be disagreeable.
_
Nick is living in dreamland if he imagines that anyone has
an obligation to imitate what he has chosen to do in
"recent exchanges". Nick certainly does not feel obliged
to imitate my behavior. If he did, he would not, for example,
claim to have a reason (for a position) and keep it to
himself on the grounds that I would not understand.
_
Also, if Nick's true position is that I should not snip "anything"
in his note, he should (if he wants to imitate my behavior)
state that position openly and clearly.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 As I recall, many diverse writers have complained about
7 Louis Blair's extremely selective and often disingenuous
7 snipping, which tends to remove much of the context from
7 his quotations.
7
7 For instance, k Houlsby expressed his support for
7 many of Louis Blair's criticisms of Tim Hanke. Yet k
7 Houlsby commented to me that he regarded Louis Blair
7 as a sometimes dishonest writer on account of Louis
7 Blair's disingenuous snipping posts out-of-context.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 I see nothing "disingenuous" about my decision to not
7 quote Nick's question. As for the past:
7
7 "in my opinion, the priy appropriate
7 way to evaluate the merits of a criticism
7 is to examine the evidence identified in
7 support of the criticism." - Louis Blair
7 (14 Jul 2006 20:37:11 -0700)
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 As I recall, k Houlsby had no reason to be biased
7 against Louis Blair.
_
But, of course, what we are seeing is Nick's words, and
who can say how biased he is? In any event, k
Houlsby is not a god who makes no errors. If Nick
imitated my behavior, he would provide a quote of k
Houlsby or not mention the matter in the first place.
_
Referring (I think) to my my decision to not quote Nick's
question, Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 My ["disingenuous"] comment was general and not
7 pertaining only to this particular example.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would not bring up a
charge like "disengenuous" in a discussion, unless
he either (1) clearly indicated that he was not referring
to any action in the current discussion, or (2) clearly
identified at least one specific action (that had
appeared in the discussion) and explained why it
should be considered to be "disingenuous".
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 I lack the time and the inclination to reprint all of the
7 comments that have been written about Louis Blair's
7 perceived or real dishonesty with regard to his
7 disingenuous snipping of posts out-of-context.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would not consider it
worthwhile to contemplate the compilation of a list of
comments about "perceived or real dishonesty".
Obviously, only the supposed "real dishonesty" is
deserving of attention.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 As far as I can recall, Vince Hart, a writer whom I respect
7 in general, ...
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would not make a statement
like this without mentioning some of his past comments:
_
"... Vince Hart's continuing reiteration of
his accusations, without citing sufficient
supporting evidence, against Louis Blair
should *not* be enough to convince me (or
some other readers of my acquaintance, who
have no interest in USCF politics) that his
accusations against Louis Blair must be true.
..." - Nick (2 Apr 2005 16:48:34 -0800)
_
_
"Like Louis Blair has found in some other
cases of dispute with Vince Hart, evidently,
I do *not* expect Vince Hart to be
intellectually honest when engaging in
some arguments. ...
...
Thanks to Vince Hart for corroborating, at
least in part, Louis Blair's very critical view
of him as a writer." - Nick (23 Oct 2005
21:41:44 -0700)
_
_
"... I have forwarded my previous exchanges
with Vince Hart in this thread to a friend of
mine (who's very critical of Eric Schiller's
chess books). He responded that he can
understand why Louis Blair, evidently, and
I have concluded that Vince Hart's deeply
dishonest. ..." - Nick (25 Oct 2005
19:29:32 -0700)
_
(I am not mentioning these quotes with the goal of
demonstrating anything negative about Vince Hart. I
would hope that people would feel it appropriate to
inspect the evidence before coming to a judgment.)
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 [Vince Hart] has strongly denounced Louis Blair as a
7 dishonest and hypocritical writer. As time has gone
7 on, I have become more convinced that Vince Hart's
7 substantially, though not necessarily always, right
7 about Louis Blair as a writer in rec.games.chess.*
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would be clear about
whether or not he ever found Vince Hart to be right
about any specific example of dishonest writing and/or
hypocritical writing.
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 As far as I can recall, Klgore once offered me his
7 sympathy and advised me in effect that it would be
7 fruitless for me to continue disputing with Louis
7 Blair on account of Louis Blair's continuing
7 disingenuous snipping.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would provide a quote
of Klgore or not mention the matter in the first place.
I do not know what discussion I had with Klgore, but
here is one sumy of the matter that he posted:
_
"... If I have a bias it is that I find Dr. Blair
objectionable when he's in 'pendant'
mode; I have had one extended
'discussion', if that word applies, with
him and it devolved into a definitional
battle concerning common words and
it was unpleasant and I bailed given his
obstinence (mine of course being totally
acceptable). ..." - klgore (12 Oct 2005
06:46:52 -0700)
_
Note the complete absence of any reference to
"disingenuous snipping" even though he set out to
describe his "bias" about finding me "objectionable".
_
Nick wrote (16 Jul 2006 18:27:40 -0700):
7 Perhaps some writers admire Louis Blair's unique
7 style of posting, consisting mostly of heavily
7 snipped quotations, but I don't recall reading their
7 comments of admiration.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would clearly describe
where (if anywhere) and why he perceives "disingenuous"
behavior in this discussion, instead of drifting off into talk
about "admiration".
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 It seemed to me that *in the context in [which I] had
7 written and which I then clarified* (Louis Blair has
7 preferred to snip that context and ignore my
7 clarification), ...
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 I do not know what "context" Nick is writing about.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would give at least
one specific example of this "context" and explain
why I should have quoted it.
_
I wrote (15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700):
7 As for the clarification, here is the sequence of events:
7
7 (1) Nick commented on 13 Jul 2006 17:39:20 -0700.
7
7 (2) I commented on 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700.
7
7 (3) Nick clarified on 13 Jul 2006 18:52:02 -0700.
7
7 I had nothing to say about Nick's clarification. Why
7 should I quote it? People could read it in Nick's note
7 without any help from me. It has nothing to do with
7 the meaning of my 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700 note.
7 ... at the time that I posted that note, I had no
7 knowledge of the clarification that was still about
7 45 minutes in the future.
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would explain why I
should have quoted his "clarification" or clearly admit
that he has no reason.
_
Nick wrote (14 Jul 2006 14:59:50 -0700):
7 ... As I recall, in some earlier exchanges with me, Louis
7 Blair has intentionally snipped, ignored, and distorted
7 the evidence that he's wrong. ...
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would indicate clearly
whether or not he claims that such behavior is taking
place in the current discussion, identify at least one
specific statement of mine that is wrong, and identify
at least one specific piece of relevant evidence that I
"intentionally snipped, ignored, and distorted".
_
Nick wrote (14 Jul 2006 15:19:34 -0700):
7 ... Louis Blair has written a post here in which he has
7 referred in part to the history of my 'communications'
7 with Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. Then Louis Blair
7 seems to object to my responding by mentioning
7 more of that history. ...
_
If Nick imitated my behavior, he would specifically identify
whatever "seems" to indicate such an objection (or admit
that he can not and apologize).
|
| |
Date: 16 Jul 2006 18:34:37
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700, "Louis Blair" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
>
> > It seemed to me that *in the context in [which I] had
> > written and which I then clarified* (Louis Blair has
> > preferred to snip that context and ignore my
> > clarification), ...
>
> >I do not know what "context" Nick is writing about.
>
> Jeez, Blair, haven't you learned yet? Context is everything.
> That is, everything Nick has written in the thread.
> Snipping a single word is the act of a troll.
> The disdain-o-meter is rising.
In contrast to Louis Blair who has snipped much of what
I have written, I have snipped nothing of what Louis Blair
has written in any of our recent exchanges.
It's wrong for anyone to insinuate that I have been
much snipping Louis Blair's posts while objecting
to Louis Blair's much snipping of my posts.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 16 Jul 2006 18:27:40
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
Caveat: I have lacked the time and the interest to
read everything in the past few days that has been
written to me or about me. Also, some thread(s)
might not be updating promptly on my newsreader.
Louis Blair wrote:
> Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 13:36:31 -0700):
> 7 ... Does Louis Blair believe that ...
> _
> I replied (15 Jul 2006 16:02:34 -0700):
> 7 ...
> 7 "When Nick addresses a note to me on
> 7 subjects that I have no obligation to
> 7 discuss, I feel that I have a right to ignore
> 7 that material in my response." - Louis
> 7 Blair (22 Apr 2006 17:53:09 -0700)
> _
> Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
>
> 7 ...Thanks to Louis Blair for clarifying the facts
> 7 about his record of not reading and not responding
> 7 to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.
It seems quite unusual for a writer who's in a dispute
in RGCM to thank his adversary for 'clarifying the facts'.
As far as I can tell, Louis Blair has not appreciated
that I have done so.
> 7 By the way, I have noticed that some posts have
> 7 not been appearing on my newsreader in a timely
> 7 manner, if at all. I can infer that those posts exist
> 7 only by noticing some other posts responding to
> 7 them later.
> 7
> 7 I should add that my lack of time also makes it
> 7 impractical for me to follow all of Louis Blair's posts.
> 7 It tends to be easier to notice that Louis Blair has
> 7 written about something rather than to notice that
> 7 Louis Blair has been avoiding writing about something.
> 7
> 7 Also, I tend not to read RGCP posts unless they
> 7 have been cross-posted to RGCM.
>
> I suggest that Nick make more use of Google when
> attacking others publicly. I suggest that Nick explicitly
> mention his limitations when attacking others publicly.
> I suggest that Nick apologize for failure to mention
> his limitations when it would have been appropriate
> to mention them.
I owe no apology to Louis Blair in this case.
> Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
>
> 7 Louis Blair practises his snipping to the extent
> 7 that he refuses even to quote my question.
> _
> Nick produces no reason why I should quote his question.
I make a point usually to permit the other person to
have his or her complete say, however disagreeable
I may find it. I doubt that Louis Blair could ever
understand why I do that, so I shall not attempt
to explain it to him.
In contrast to Louis Blair, I do not recall that I have snipped
anything that he has written in any recent exchanges with
him, even when I have found much of it to be disagreeable.
> _
> Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
>
> 7 As I recall, many diverse writers have complained
> 7 about Louis Blair's extremely selective and often
> 7 disingenuous snipping, which tends to remove much
> 7 of the context from his quotations.
> 7
> 7 For instance, k Houlsby expressed his support for
> 7 many of Louis Blair's criticisms of Tim Hanke. Yet
> 7 k Houlsby commented to me that he regarded
> 7 Louis Blair as a sometimes dishonest writer on
> 7 account of Louis Blair's disingenuous snipping posts
> 7 out-of-context.
As I recall, k Houlsby had no reason
to be biased against Louis Blair.
> _
> I see nothing "disingenuous" about my decision
> to not quote Nick's question.
My comment was general and not pertaining
only to this particular example.
> As for the past:
> _
> "in my opinion, the priy appropriate
> way to evaluate the merits of a criticism
> is to examine the evidence identified in
> support of the criticism." - Louis Blair
> (14 Jul 2006 20:37:11 -0700)
I lack the time and the inclination to reprint all of
the comments that have been written about Louis
Blair's perceived or real dishonesty with regard to
his disingenuous snipping of posts out-of-context.
As far as I can recall, Vince Hart, a writer whom
I respect in general, has strongly denounced
Louis Blair as a dishonest and hypocritical writer.
As time has gone on, I have become more
convinced that Vince Hart's substantially,
though not necessarily always, right about
Louis Blair as a writer in rec.games.chess.*
As far as I can recall, Klgore once offered me
his sympathy and advised me in effect that it
would be fruitless for me to continue disputing
with Louis Blair on account of Louis Blair's
continuing disingenuous snipping.
Perhaps some writers admire Louis Blair's
unique style of posting, consisting mostly of
heavily snipped quotations, but I don't recall
reading their comments of admiration.
--Nick
> _
> Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
>
> 7 It seemed to me that *in the context in [which I] had
> 7 written and which I then clarified* (Louis Blair has
> 7 preferred to snip that context and ignore my
> 7 clarification), ...
>
> _
> I do not know what "context" Nick is writing about.
> As for the clarification, here is the sequence of events:
> _
> (1) Nick commented on 13 Jul 2006 17:39:20 -0700.
> _
> (2) I commented on 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700.
> _
> (3) Nick clarified on 13 Jul 2006 18:52:02 -0700.
> _
> I had nothing to say about Nick's clarification. Why
> should I quote it? People could read it in Nick's note
> without any help from me. It has nothing to do with
> the meaning of my 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700 note.
> My time-travelling DeLorian was not working that
> day, so, at the time that I posted that note, I had no
> knowledge of the clarification that was still about
> 45 minutes in the future.
>
> _
> Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
>
> 7 Louis Blair's noting (actually, I already knew that)
> 7 that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has *recently criticised
> 7 Sam Sloan as a writer at Wikipedia* *could mean*
> 7 -- that's why I asked the question that Louis Blair
> 7 prefers to snip -- Louis Blair has concluded that
> 7 Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has stopped defending or
> 7 supporting Sam Sloan in all other ways.
> 7
> 7 Louis Blair has preferred to snip that question rather
> 7 than to answer it.
> _
> If Nick wants to ask about the meaning of something in
> one of my notes, I suggest that he quote it, and refer
> explicitly to meaning in his question. To save time, I will
> warn Nick now, that a likely response will be to refer him
> to a dictionary.
> _
> As for what I have concluded, I see no reason why I
> should be obliged to discuss conclusions on a subject
> chosen by Nick.
> _
> Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
>
> 7 So Louis Blair has shown that he prefers not to
> 7 state whether or not he believes that ...
> _
> I have shown repeatedly that I feel that I have no obligation
> to write about subjects chosen by Nick.
|
| |
Date: 16 Jul 2006 08:30:10
From:
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700, "Louis Blair" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
>
> > It seemed to me that *in the context in [which I] had
> > written and which I then clarified* (Louis Blair has
> > preferred to snip that context and ignore my
> > clarification), ...
>
> >I do not know what "context" Nick is writing about.
>
> Jeez, Blair, haven't you learned yet? Context is everything. That
> is, everything Nick has written in the thread.
Not only that context, but also the context of every single post in the
usenet archive, especially if it relates in some way to Stan
Booz/Wlod/Mike Murray/whoever Nick disdains at the moment.
Snipping a single word
> is the act of a troll. The disdain-o-meter is rising.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 19:25:18
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 13:36:31 -0700):
7 ... Does Louis Blair believe that ...
_
I replied (15 Jul 2006 16:02:34 -0700):
7 ...
7 "When Nick addresses a note to me on
7 subjects that I have no obligation to
7 discuss, I feel that I have a right to ignore
7 that material in my response." - Louis
7 Blair (22 Apr 2006 17:53:09 -0700)
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 ...Thanks to Louis Blair for clarifying the facts
7 about his record of not reading and not responding
7 to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.
7
7 By the way, I have noticed that some posts have
7 not been appearing on my newsreader in a timely
7 manner, if at all. I can infer that those posts exist
7 only by noticing some other posts responding to
7 them later.
7
7 I should add that my lack of time also makes it
7 impractical for me to follow all of Louis Blair's posts.
7 It tends to be easier to notice that Louis Blair has
7 written about something rather than to notice that
7 Louis Blair has been avoiding writing about something.
7
7 Also, I tend not to read RGCP posts unless they
7 have been cross-posted to RGCM.
_
I suggest that Nick make more use of Google when
attacking others publicly. I suggest that Nick explicitly
mention his limitations when attacking others publicly.
I suggest that Nick apologize for failure to mention
his limitations when it would have been appropriate
to mention them.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 Louis Blair practises his snipping to the extent that he
7 refuses even to quote my question.
_
Nick produces no reason why I should quote his question.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 As I recall, many diverse writers have complained
7 about Louis Blair's extremely selective and often
7 disingenuous snipping, which tends to remove much
7 of the context from his quotations.
7
7 For instance, k Houlsby expressed his support for
7 many of Louis Blair's criticisms of Tim Hanke. Yet
7 k Houlsby commented to me that he regarded
7 Louis Blair as a sometimes dishonest writer on
7 account of Louis Blair's disingenuous snipping posts
7 out-of-context.
_
I see nothing "disingenuous" about my decision to not
quote Nick's question. As for the past:
_
"in my opinion, the priy appropriate
way to evaluate the merits of a criticism
is to examine the evidence identified in
support of the criticism." - Louis Blair
(14 Jul 2006 20:37:11 -0700)
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 It seemed to me that *in the context in [which I] had
7 written and which I then clarified* (Louis Blair has
7 preferred to snip that context and ignore my
7 clarification), ...
_
I do not know what "context" Nick is writing about.
As for the clarification, here is the sequence of events:
_
(1) Nick commented on 13 Jul 2006 17:39:20 -0700.
_
(2) I commented on 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700.
_
(3) Nick clarified on 13 Jul 2006 18:52:02 -0700.
_
I had nothing to say about Nick's clarification. Why
should I quote it? People could read it in Nick's note
without any help from me. It has nothing to do with
the meaning of my 13 Jul 2006 18:07:12 -0700 note.
My time-travelling DeLorian was not working that
day, so, at the time that I posted that note, I had no
knowledge of the clarification that was still about
45 minutes in the future.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 Louis Blair's noting (actually, I already knew that)
7 that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has *recently criticised
7 Sam Sloan as a writer at Wikipedia* *could mean*
7 -- that's why I asked the question that Louis Blair
7 prefers to snip -- Louis Blair has concluded that
7 Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has stopped defending or
7 supporting Sam Sloan in all other ways.
7
7 Louis Blair has preferred to snip that question rather
7 than to answer it.
_
If Nick wants to ask about the meaning of something in
one of my notes, I suggest that he quote it, and refer
explicitly to meaning in his question. To save time, I will
warn Nick now, that a likely response will be to refer him
to a dictionary.
_
As for what I have concluded, I see no reason why I
should be obliged to discuss conclusions on a subject
chosen by Nick.
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
7 So Louis Blair has shown that he prefers not to
7 state whether or not he believes that ...
_
I have shown repeatedly that I feel that I have no obligation
to write about subjects chosen by Nick.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jul 2006 08:33:40
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
On 15 Jul 2006 19:25:18 -0700, "Louis Blair" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 16:31:02 -0700):
> It seemed to me that *in the context in [which I] had
> written and which I then clarified* (Louis Blair has
> preferred to snip that context and ignore my
> clarification), ...
>I do not know what "context" Nick is writing about.
Jeez, Blair, haven't you learned yet? Context is everything. That
is, everything Nick has written in the thread. Snipping a single word
is the act of a troll. The disdain-o-meter is rising.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 16:31:02
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
Louis Blair wrote:
> Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 13:36:31 -0700):
> 7 ... As far as I know, Louis Blair has chosen
> 7 not to criticise Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.
>
> "If Nick has checked the record at all, he
> should have noticed that, for the most part,
> I have been ignoring Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
> for years. I do not make an effort to read his
> notes, although I may do so if he comments
> on an issue that I have chosen to follow. ...
> Lack of time makes it impractical for me to
> follow everyone ..."
> - Louis Blair (14 Jul 2006 20:37:11 -0700)
I had not previously read that statement by
Louis Blair. Thanks to Louis Blair for clarifying
the facts about his record of not reading and
not responding to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.
By the way, I have noticed that some posts
have not been appearing on my newsreader
in a timely manner, if at all. I can infer that
those posts exist only by noticing some other
posts responding to them later.
I should add that my lack of time also makes
it impractical for me to follow all of Louis Blair's
posts. It tends to be easier to notice that
Louis Blair has written about something
rather than to notice that Louis Blair has
been avoiding writing about something.
Also, I tend not to read RGCP posts unless
they have been cross-posted to RGCM.
> Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 13:36:31 -0700):
>
> 7 Does Louis Blair believe that ...
Louis Blair practises his snipping to the extent
that he refuses even to quote my question.
As I recall, many diverse writers have complained
about Louis Blair's extremely selective and
often disingenuous snipping, which tends to
remove much of the context from his quotations.
For instance, k Houlsby expressed his support
for many of Louis Blair's criticisms of Tim Hanke.
Yet k Houlsby commented to me that he
regarded Louis Blair as a sometimes dishonest
writer on account of Louis Blair's disingenuous
snipping posts out-of-context.
> "When Nick addresses a note to me on
> subjects that I have no obligation to
> discuss, I feel that I have a right to ignore
> that material in my response." - Louis
> Blair (22 Apr 2006 17:53:09 -0700)
It seemed to me that *in the context in
whichI had written and which I then clarified*
(Louis Blair has preferred to snip that context
and ignore my clarification), Louis Blair's
noting (actually, I already knew that) that
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has *recently
criticised Sam Sloan as a writer at
Wikipedia* *could mean* -- that's why
I asked the question that Louis Blair
prefers to snip -- Louis Blair has concluded
that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has stopped
defending or supporting Sam Sloan in all
other ways.
Louis Blair has preferred to snip that question
rather than to answer it. So Louis Blair has
shown that he prefers not to state whether or
not he believes that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
opposes Sam Sloan in ways other than as a
writer at Wikipedia.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 16:12:59
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
Larry Parr wrote (14 Jul 2006 12:42:22 -0700):
> ... Most of the votes are already in. ...
_
Does Larry Parr have a prediction about the result of the
USCF board election?
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 16:02:34
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 13:36:31 -0700):
7 ... As far as I know, Louis Blair has chosen not to
7 criticise Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.
_
"If Nick has checked the record at all, he
should have noticed that, for the most part,
I have been ignoring Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski for years. I do not make an
effort to read his notes, although I may do
so if he comments on an issue that I have
chosen to follow. ... Lack of time makes it
impractical for me to follow everyone ..."
- Louis Blair (14 Jul 2006 20:37:11 -0700)
_
Nick wrote (15 Jul 2006 13:36:31 -0700):
7 Does Louis Blair believe that ...
_
"When Nick addresses a note to me on
subjects that I have no obligation to
discuss, I feel that I have a right to ignore
that material in my response." - Louis
Blair (22 Apr 2006 17:53:09 -0700)
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 14:36:30
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
Subject: Pthetic Nick-Null / Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
Troll Nick-Null Boobaki (not to be confused
with non-anonymous Nicks) defends his
anonymous cowardish ways.
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> > Shame on you for being such a despicable,
> > anonimous coward.
To this Nick-Null trolls out of context:
> My sympathies are with Randy Bauer.
Idiot's sympathy is pathetic.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 13:36:31
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> London Chess wrote (to Larry Parr):
> > Shame on you for defending such a
> > despicable bloke.
This 'despicable bloke' is Sam Sloan.
> > Tony
>
> Shame on you for being such a despicable,
> anonimous coward.
>
> Wlod
Randy Bauer wrote about Wlodzimierz Holsztynski:
"Wlod, you are a hypocrite of the highest order.
You carry on and rebuke those of us who tell
the truth about (Sam) Sloan--he IS by the way,
a convicted felon, and he DID, by the way have
his securities license revoked. Meanwhile
you make claims of 'corruption is flowing
in your veins' (about Randy Bauer) without
a shred of proof. ... Try to stick to the issues and
leave your personal insults out of your posts"
--Randy Bauer (27 June 2006, in RGCP)
After writing one more post in that thread,
Randy Bauer apparently decided that it would
be a waste of his time to respond any further
to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's personal insults,
dishonest distortions, and false accusations.
My sympathies are with Randy Bauer.
As far as I know, Louis Blair has chosen
not to criticise Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.
Does Louis Blair believe that Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski's recent criticisms of Sam Sloan
*only as a writer at Wikipedia* must mean that
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has stopped defending
or supporting Sam Sloan in all other ways?
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2006 16:06:50
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
London Chess wrote:
>
> Shame on you for defending such a
> despicable bloke.
>
> Tony
Shame on you for being such a despicable,
anonimous coward.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2006 13:24:55
From: London Chess
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
[email protected] wrote:
> TOO LATE FOR HERPICIDE
>
> Most of the votes are already in. Bill Brock and
> his fellow anons can stop their smear campaign.
>
> London Chess wrote:
> > Sam Sloan is a known convicted felon. He admitted to having sex with
> > minors. He's also admitted to commit fraud and had his securities
> > license revoked. He's a menace to chess in America. He's probably the
> > biggest chess bum on this planet. Should this bloke be allowed to run
> > for the EB?
> >
> > Tony
Excuse me but which part is not true? Shame on you for defending such a
despicable bloke.
Tony
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2006 12:42:22
From:
Subject: Re: Should convicted felons be allowed to run for the EB?
|
TOO LATE FOR HERPICIDE
Most of the votes are already in. Bill Brock and
his fellow anons can stop their smear campaign.
London Chess wrote:
> Sam Sloan is a known convicted felon. He admitted to having sex with
> minors. He's also admitted to commit fraud and had his securities
> license revoked. He's a menace to chess in America. He's probably the
> biggest chess bum on this planet. Should this bloke be allowed to run
> for the EB?
>
> Tony
|
|
