| |
Main
Date: 07 Mar 2008 02:42:36
From: samsloan
Subject: Phil Innes expounds on "Journalism"
|
Those of us who want to take a break from discussions of serious
topics and just to enjoy a good laugh for a change need go no further
that look at what our "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes says when he calls
himself a "journalist" (at the genius level no less) and expounds on
the subject of "Journalism". Apparently, Innes must feel that anyone
who posts a lot to this group is a "journalist", as he has no other
qualification. Here is what Phil Innes wrote under the topic of "20
Questions":
============================================
Do not e-mail me about business which is public. Just speak your piece
here
as you did before.
Journalism is a little understood practice, but it is a public one. If
you
wish to make your views public evident, as your wrote to me in
private,
re-state them here.
My job as journalist is not to change anyone's opinion.
It is to, at genius level of operation*, shift everyone from their
certainties for as much as 10 minutes of thought. Where people land
from
that is not my business, not should it be.
The practice of journalism is to act as catalyst, not consultant. To
activate the reader, not anticipate them. To stimulate the topic, not
whore
after any trophies.
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 10:23:29
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Phil Innes expounds on "Journalism"
|
On 7, 5:42 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Those of us who want to take a break from discussions of serious
> topics and just to enjoy a good laugh for a change need go no further
> that look at what our "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes says when he calls
> himself a "journalist" (at the genius level no less) and expounds on
> the subject of "Journalism". Apparently, Innes must feel that anyone
> who posts a lot to this group is a "journalist", as he has no other
> qualification. Here is what Phil Innes wrote under the topic of "20
> Questions":
I found it amusing. Thanks for reposting it. The clue that P Innes was
'borrowing' someone else's words was that the words made sense. The
humor in the post is that P Innes thinks the words he 'borrowed' apply
to himself. To quote Gilbert's paraphrase of an Aesop fable, "jackdaws
strut in peacock's feathers."
> ============================================
>
> Do not e-mail me about business which is public. Just speak your piece
> here
> as you did before.
>
> Journalism is a little understood practice, but it is a public one. If
> you
> wish to make your views public evident, as your wrote to me in
> private,
> re-state them here.
>
> My job as journalist is not to change anyone's opinion.
>
> It is to, at genius level of operation*, shift everyone from their
> certainties for as much as 10 minutes of thought. Where people land
> from
> that is not my business, not should it be.
>
> The practice of journalism is to act as catalyst, not consultant. To
> activate the reader, not anticipate them. To stimulate the topic, not
> whore
> after any trophies.
>
> Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2008 16:17:52
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Phil Innes expounds on "Journalism"
|
On 7, 3:15 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> A /real/ discussion of issues is perhaps not
> possible on account of the lawsuits currently in
> progress; but that didn't stop PT from lashing
> out at the real SS. One thing I noticed that
> these two do-gooders have in common is that
> they are/were powerless in the face of the
> sinister Bill Goichberg-- a man who apparently
> "runs things" on the USCF board. Instead of
> a supposed democracy, we seem to have a
> sort of oligarchy or what-have-you, in which
> one person basically dictates how his group
> of cronies will vote, and this trumps the one
> or two opposing board members virtually every
> time.
> -- help bot
You got it !!!
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2008 12:15:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Phil Innes expounds on "Journalism"
|
On 7, 12:09 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> So he gave you a change to state your program and views and since you
> can't do that without making a personal attach, you gripe .
Speaking of "journalism"...
I noticed that while Paul Truong was allowed to
rail against his unnamed adversary in the IMnes
"interview", there was nothing from the other side,
from the loony Sam Sloan of the Cosmic Sex
Galaxy. I dunno, but this looks a lot like what
they call favoritism (not "journalism").
A /real/ discussion of issues is perhaps not
possible on account of the lawsuits currently in
progress; but that didn't stop PT from lashing
out at the real SS. One thing I noticed that
these two do-gooders have in common is that
they are/were powerless in the face of the
sinister Bill Goichberg-- a man who apparently
"runs things" on the USCF board. Instead of
a supposed democracy, we seem to have a
sort of oligarchy or what-have-you, in which
one person basically dictates how his group
of cronies will vote, and this trumps the one
or two opposing board members virtually every
time.
The solution is obvious: the entire Evans
ratpack needs to run and get elected to the
board, so the BG regime will finally have a bit
of competition. From then on, board meetings
will be held -- not in Podunk, Iowa or some
place in Tennessee -- but in Reno, Nevada!
A beautiful place, with trees and /real/
mountains (not those pretenders they call
the Blue Ridge "mountains"), capped with
snow above the tree line. What's a tree line,
you ask? It's the altitude above which the
trees cannot grow, so that leaves bare rock
and, of course, snow. Mountains, you see,
are not those rounded-off thingies you see
in the East; they are pointy, jagged peaked
rocky ridges that jut upward to the sky-- the
king of things you don't want to attempt
climbing without a safety rope.
Anyway, back to the puff-pieces which
are passed off as "interviews" these days... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2008 09:09:06
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Phil Innes expounds on "Journalism"
|
On 7, 4:42=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Those of us who want to take a break from discussions of serious
> topics and just to enjoy a good laugh for a change need go no further
> that look at what our "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes says when he calls
> himself a "journalist" (at the genius level no less) and expounds on
> the subject of "Journalism". Apparently, Innes must feel that anyone
> who posts a lot to this group is a "journalist", as he has no other
> qualification. Here is what Phil Innes wrote under the topic of "20
> Questions":
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Do not e-mail me about business which is public. Just speak your piece
> here
> as you did before.
>
> Journalism is a little understood practice, but it is a public one. If
> you
> wish to make your views public evident, as your wrote to me in
> private,
> re-state them here.
>
> My job as journalist is not to change anyone's opinion.
>
> It is to, at genius level of operation*, shift everyone from their
> certainties for as much as 10 minutes of thought. Where people land
> from
> that is not my business, not should it be.
>
> The practice of journalism is to act as catalyst, not consultant. To
> activate the reader, not anticipate them. To stimulate the topic, not
> whore
> after any trophies.
>
> Phil Innes
So he gave you a change to state your program and views and since you
can't do that without making a personal attach, you gripe .
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 09:26:57
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Phil Innes expounds on "Journalism"
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 7, 4:42 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Those of us who want to take a break from discussions of serious
> topics and just to enjoy a good laugh for a change need go no further
> that look at what our "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes says when he calls
> himself a "journalist" (at the genius level no less) and expounds on
> the subject of "Journalism".
What really funny Rob, is that I am quoting Bron Waugh, son of Evelyn who
wrote Bridehead. While Waugh is thought to have been one of the best
novelists in the C20th in England, his son was thought to be the best
journalist.
Just to make it clear - he said journalism was not cheap propaganda, but
that writing which shifted others from their fixed views, whatever they
were, for as much as 10 minutes at a time.
Greg Kennedy, whose ethos is that of the newsgroup hack, is only concerned
with winning the opinion of others - a somewhat different scenario in
offering a context to them so they can decide for themselves. He is obsessed
with groups and followers, and doesn't understand how for example you and I
can agree with Larry Parr about the Sloan/Truong issue.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> Apparently, Innes must feel that anyone
> who posts a lot to this group is a "journalist", as he has no other
> qualification. Here is what Phil Innes wrote under the topic of "20
> Questions":
>
> ============================================
>
> Do not e-mail me about business which is public. Just speak your piece
> here
> as you did before.
>
> Journalism is a little understood practice, but it is a public one. If
> you
> wish to make your views public evident, as your wrote to me in
> private,
> re-state them here.
>
> My job as journalist is not to change anyone's opinion.
>
> It is to, at genius level of operation*, shift everyone from their
> certainties for as much as 10 minutes of thought. Where people land
> from
> that is not my business, not should it be.
>
> The practice of journalism is to act as catalyst, not consultant. To
> activate the reader, not anticipate them. To stimulate the topic, not
> whore
> after any trophies.
>
> Phil Innes
So he gave you a change to state your program and views and since you
can't do that without making a personal attach, you gripe .
|
|
