| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-26, 8:34 pm |
| The Historian does not agree with Mr. Parr's claims, nor does he like
being drafted into Parr's cause. -- Neil Brenen (AKA The Historian)
Neil Brennen says that he is being drafted into my cause and does not,
in any case, agree with my claims. To my knowledge, I wrote that I was
agreeing with him on a single point. I made no other claim. If Mr.
Brennen can show me otherwise, I will retract my statement.
As for John Hilbert calling Edward Winter an historian, he was
using the word either incorrectly or loosely. Interestingly, Mr.
Winter himself has not described his works as histories, and he is
correct not to do so.
Even as an antiquarian, Mr. Winter has written little of any
length, that melds numerous items into a coherent body of work. I
think he can be credited or accused, depending on your view, of
founding antiquarian journalism -- a kind of non-fiction version of the
Jonathan Gash Lovejoy novels, though of course, not so marketable
because not so enjoyable.
Meanwhile Taylor Kingston still has provided not a shred of
evidence that Sam Sloan lied about Mr. Winter's ethics complaint in
1986, the reason for his unprovoked attack. Nor has he answered my
original point that Mr. Winter was being dishonest and misleading in
his complaint published in a letter to the editor of Chess Life.
Instead, like a child stomping his foot, he now demands that I give
"proof" for an opinion I formed about something I read by Mr. Winter 20
years ago which is stored with most of my library in America. Nor does
he have peep to say about his hero trying to destroy the livelihood of
several chess journalists, who are far stronger players than he is, by
repeatedly trying to get them fired. Or about Mr. Winter lying that BCO
was ghosted despite the fact that GM Keene auctioned off the manuscript
that was in Kasparov's own handwriting. Or about never receiving any
money from FIDE which, in point of fact, helped subsidize Chess Notes
by sending it to all FIDE nations.
And so it goes.
|