| Chess One 2006-11-19, 8:43 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1163607109.614233.196320@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> I do. On page 276 it does say Lasker was "8th at Nottingham 1936,"
O thanks! Let history be history! Any more? ...
quote:
> but that is inaccurate. He was =7-8th, a minor yet definite difference.
> The entry contains other errors as well. At least it does not make
> Innes' error about Hastings 1935, nor claim, like he did, that
> Nottingham 1936 had a field of 8 instead of its actual 15.
>
>
> Actually, David Hooper wrote the entry on Lasker. Uncharacteristic of
> him to make such an error.
I'll send him your 'actual' comments shall I? Was the term you used,
'ignoramus'?
quote:
> Unfortunately, it is quite characteristic of
> Phil Innes to make glaring errors like disowning his own words and
> ascribing them to someone else.
Unfortunately Kingston had this fantasy that Lasker was somewhat more
substantial than he was after 1925, but cited no material to establish it
that was not minor, and even that was selective. He resented other mentions
of Lasker and began his name calling as he has done to every other person
who dared comment on 'his' subjects.
While cutting all the chess from posts to emphasis his abuses, he can't even
acknowledge that I said I became confused in following him.
quote:
> It's not that big a deal for Phil, or anyone on rgcm, to confuse
> Nottingham with Hastings, 1936 with 1935, and =7-8th place with 8th
> place.
> But it *_is_* a big deal, after confusing all those things, for him
> to insist he never did so,
Its what I wrote in the first place - you dummy! Now is that true or not? Or
will you retreat and hide in the Cole-shed?
quote:
> and try to blame it on someone else.
Blame? I would have liked to have talked about the origins of the
hyper-modern struggle, and all its contributors rather than falsely salute
just one of them because he had been put on a pedestal - a rather wonky
pedestal in this case - how come you pass on, or even eliminate other
comments made during these exchanges?
If you want blame, I accuse you of not conducting a civil conversation and
instead conducting an exercise in hero worship with no regard to other
people's opinion, nor even the encyclopedia in your library, and therefore
presenting something quite out of balance.
You were a bit late to the party with your knowledge, which I think you were
not exactly in possession of at the beginning of the conversation ;)
quote:
> It's
> not only dishonest, it hints at real psychological imbalance. A normal,
> civil person would merely say, "Sorry, my mistake." Our Phil, instead,
> must lash out with nonsense a blind man can see through.
I really DID already say I became confused following your non-chess
nonsense!
When you feel ready to conduct an open discussion about writing on chess,
and specifically your own chesscafe episodes, then you would be more
credible in demanding other people be considered to have psychological
imbalances about their own orientations to chess history.
While you can't even write in public that authors have a right to respond to
just criticism [!]* then your pretensions not to have strong, even vehement,
personal matters to settle which you have carefully nursed over the long
years, cannot really seem to be convincing in public, can they?
Phil Innes
*that's a Shostakovitch reference in response to Stalin.
|