|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > November 2006 > The truth about RGCP -- or -- Phil's Dilemma
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
The truth about RGCP -- or -- Phil's Dilemma
|
|
| Matt Nemmers 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
| Chess One wrote:
quote:
>
>  ) I don't know much about Matt, except he doesn't like me particularly,
> but I can see he is a straight shooter. If he said it was you, then at least
> he genuinely thought it was.
It's hard to say you don't like "someone" when here you're not really
dealing with the person so much as their online persona. It's not
really THEM, ya know? They might be totally different in person than
on RGCP. For example, I imagine someone like Jason Repa to be a shy,
meek little introvert sitting in the corner at a social gathering or
chess tournament, unwilling to really 'come out of his shell' with
people in person. Of course, I could be wrong.
I don't not like you, Phil. Not at all. We've had our spats -- the
Rolf Teuschen inspired Henry Miller debate of a few years ago? -- but
no more serious than I had with some of my apparently perceived
"allies" on here (e.g. Neil Brennen's & my disagreement on the ethics
behind the Sloan/Brock grudge match or his belief that I'm a bigot who
wraps himself in the flag while discussing evolution vs. ID). These
kinds of things, though they can be frustrating at the time, are what
make us all come back to RGCP. We've all been on the receiving end of
a gang bang here. "Wounded Turkey Syndrome." You've heard of it? If
there are a bunch of turkeys inside a fence and one of them happens to
get hurt, the others will start pecking at it with their beaks until
the wounded one dies. That happens here in RGCP every day: Someone
says something stupid (Rob: "Prozac is my boat! I was ON Prozac!"),
everyone laughs, and when they try to defend themselves against their
stupidity, the pecking begins. This is why it's always been my policy
to:
1. Admit my mistake immediately when I've been proven wrong (or when
it's clear I've misunderstood);
2. Apologize to the person/people I've offended when I've been
incorrect; and
3. If I don't believe I'm incorrect (or if it's my opinion), back up
my position with facts or beliefs of mine that are "common-sensical"
(at least to me).
You may still be wrong in the end, but this strategy leaves them no
ammunition to throw in your face. "Sorry, I was wrong." has no
rebuttal.
I'm more of a masochist than anything, Phil. You see, I enjoy the
pecking when it's at the expense of some poor bastard who either
doesn't want to admit he was wrong, thinks he's always right, or says
he's going to do something we all know he has no intention of doing (or
they may attempt to do it, but won't be successful). This is why I
have so much fun with Gordon Roy Parker. People who don't or won't
admit their faults are the MOST fun for me. Especially when they're
really arrogant about it. I love that!
You said you were going to post the emails and didn't, but still talked
about doing it -- saying you could at any time -- and even went so far
as to describe their contents as being able to prove that TK said
something HE says he didn't. I simply called you on it; reminded you
of what you said in August whenever you brought it up and told you your
position was ridiculous without the evidence. And it is! You said
you'd do something and haven't done it....for whatever reason. You can
call it honor (or I suppose you would say "honour") if you want, but in
every online argument I've ever been in, the guy who is RIGHT in the
end is more esteemed than the one who stood on principle.
TK's right -- you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. On one
hand you honestly believe you're right; on the other to prove your
position you'd have to "betray a confidence." However, the REASON you
lose either way is because you CARE what other people think of you,
despite what you've said about "popularity contests" in the past.
The solution you're overlooking is that if you're right about the
letters and everyone sees that TK is fibbing about them (as you say he
is), he's outed as a LIAR. A bald-faced LIAR who can't be trusted at
his word in private emails. Sure, you betrayed a confidence, but it
was the confidence of a liar so is there really any harm done anyway?
People will remember more that TK lied than they will that you
published the emails. This is assuming, of course, that what you say
is true and what he says is false. As of now, nobody knows. Except
you. This is the crossroad you are at -- I just enjoy watching (and
encouraging) the struggle.
You're okay in my book, Phil. After all, I really don't know YOU any
more than you know ME. I'm just one turkey in the big RGCP field
trying to have some fun burying my beak in the latest bird who's mouth
has made him the next casualty.
| |
|
| Matt Nemmers wrote:
quote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
> It's hard to say you don't like "someone" when here you're not really
> dealing with the person so much as their online persona. It's not
> really THEM, ya know? They might be totally different in person than
> on RGCP. For example, I imagine someone like Jason Repa to be a shy,
> meek little introvert sitting in the corner at a social gathering or
> chess tournament, unwilling to really 'come out of his shell' with
> people in person. Of course, I could be wrong.
>
> I don't not like you, Phil. Not at all. We've had our spats -- the
> Rolf Teuschen inspired Henry Miller debate of a few years ago? -- but
> no more serious than I had with some of my apparently perceived
> "allies" on here (e.g. Neil Brennen's & my disagreement on the ethics
> behind the Sloan/Brock grudge match or his belief that I'm a bigot who
> wraps himself in the flag while discussing evolution vs. ID). These
> kinds of things, though they can be frustrating at the time, are what
> make us all come back to RGCP. We've all been on the receiving end of
> a gang bang here. "Wounded Turkey Syndrome." You've heard of it? If
> there are a bunch of turkeys inside a fence and one of them happens to
> get hurt, the others will start pecking at it with their beaks until
> the wounded one dies. That happens here in RGCP every day:
quote:
> Someone
> says something stupid (Rob: "Prozac is my boat! I was ON Prozac!"),
> everyone laughs, and when they try to defend themselves against their
> stupidity, the pecking begins.
My trap worked. I set it for Brennen. I have to reserve my right to
peck at him now.
:-)
quote:
> This is why it's always been my policy
> to:
>
> 1. Admit my mistake immediately when I've been proven wrong (or when
> it's clear I've misunderstood);
> 2. Apologize to the person/people I've offended when I've been
> incorrect; and
> 3. If I don't believe I'm incorrect (or if it's my opinion), back up
> my position with facts or beliefs of mine that are "common-sensical"
> (at least to me).
>
> You may still be wrong in the end, but this strategy leaves them no
> ammunition to throw in your face. "Sorry, I was wrong." has no
> rebuttal.
>
> I'm more of a masochist than anything, Phil. You see, I enjoy the
> pecking when it's at the expense of some poor bastard who either
> doesn't want to admit he was wrong, thinks he's always right, or says
> he's going to do something we all know he has no intention of doing (or
> they may attempt to do it, but won't be successful). This is why I
> have so much fun with Gordon Roy Parker. People who don't or won't
> admit their faults are the MOST fun for me. Especially when they're
> really arrogant about it. I love that!
>
> You said you were going to post the emails and didn't, but still talked
> about doing it -- saying you could at any time -- and even went so far
> as to describe their contents as being able to prove that TK said
> something HE says he didn't. I simply called you on it; reminded you
> of what you said in August whenever you brought it up and told you your
> position was ridiculous without the evidence. And it is! You said
> you'd do something and haven't done it....for whatever reason. You can
> call it honor (or I suppose you would say "honour") if you want, but in
> every online argument I've ever been in, the guy who is RIGHT in the
> end is more esteemed than the one who stood on principle.
>
> TK's right -- you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. On one
> hand you honestly believe you're right; on the other to prove your
> position you'd have to "betray a confidence." However, the REASON you
> lose either way is because you CARE what other people think of you,
> despite what you've said about "popularity contests" in the past.
>
> The solution you're overlooking is that if you're right about the
> letters and everyone sees that TK is fibbing about them (as you say he
> is), he's outed as a LIAR. A bald-faced LIAR who can't be trusted at
> his word in private emails. Sure, you betrayed a confidence, but it
> was the confidence of a liar so is there really any harm done anyway?
> People will remember more that TK lied than they will that you
> published the emails. This is assuming, of course, that what you say
> is true and what he says is false. As of now, nobody knows. Except
> you. This is the crossroad you are at -- I just enjoy watching (and
> encouraging) the struggle.
>
> You're okay in my book, Phil. After all, I really don't know YOU any
> more than you know ME. I'm just one turkey in the big RGCP field
> trying to have some fun burying my beak in the latest bird who's mouth
> has made him the next casualty.
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
| Rob wrote:
quote:
> Matt Nemmers wrote:
>
>
>
>
> My trap worked. I set it for Brennen. I have to reserve my right to
> peck at him now.
> :-)
Statements like the above are what get you pecked to death around here,
Rob.
| |
| The Historian 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
|
Matt Nemmers wrote:
quote:
> Rob wrote:
>
> Statements like the above are what get you pecked to death around here,
> Rob.
Does Robtroll think posting self-libels is a "trap?" If so, please trap
me again. Robtroll, confess to something vile on the Internet. Keep
doing it until you have no reputation left.
| |
| The Historian 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
|
Matt Nemmers wrote:
quote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
> It's hard to say you don't like "someone" when here you're not really
> dealing with the person so much as their online persona. It's not
> really THEM, ya know? They might be totally different in person than
> on RGCP. For example, I imagine someone like Jason Repa to be a shy,
> meek little introvert sitting in the corner at a social gathering or
> chess tournament, unwilling to really 'come out of his shell' with
> people in person. Of course, I could be wrong.
>
> I don't not like you, Phil. Not at all. We've had our spats -- the
> Rolf Teuschen inspired Henry Miller debate of a few years ago?
The debate that Innes repeated insisted I conducted with his
antisemitic buddy Rolf? The one in which he though I was using the
screen name "Matt Nemmers?"
-- but
quote:
> no more serious than I had with some of my apparently perceived
> "allies" on here (e.g. Neil Brennen's & my disagreement on the ethics
> behind the Sloan/Brock grudge match or his belief that I'm a bigot who
> wraps himself in the flag while discussing evolution vs. ID).
Thank you for putting "allies" in quotation marks. Had you used the
word without them, I would be forced to consider you insane. Even the
Bush administration doesn't consider RGCP worth fighting for.
These
quote:
> kinds of things, though they can be frustrating at the time, are what
> make us all come back to RGCP. We've all been on the receiving end of
> a gang bang here. "Wounded Turkey Syndrome." You've heard of it? If
> there are a bunch of turkeys inside a fence and one of them happens to
> get hurt, the others will start pecking at it with their beaks until
> the wounded one dies. That happens here in RGCP every day: Someone
> says something stupid (Rob: "Prozac is my boat! I was ON Prozac!"),
> everyone laughs, and when they try to defend themselves against their
> stupidity, the pecking begins. This is why it's always been my policy
> to:
>
> 1. Admit my mistake immediately when I've been proven wrong (or when
> it's clear I've misunderstood);
> 2. Apologize to the person/people I've offended when I've been
> incorrect; and
> 3. If I don't believe I'm incorrect (or if it's my opinion), back up
> my position with facts or beliefs of mine that are "common-sensical"
> (at least to me).
>
> You may still be wrong in the end, but this strategy leaves them no
> ammunition to throw in your face. "Sorry, I was wrong." has no
> rebuttal.
>
> I'm more of a masochist than anything, Phil. You see, I enjoy the
> pecking when it's at the expense of some poor bastard who either
> doesn't want to admit he was wrong, thinks he's always right, or says
> he's going to do something we all know he has no intention of doing (or
> they may attempt to do it, but won't be successful). This is why I
> have so much fun with Gordon Roy Parker. People who don't or won't
> admit their faults are the MOST fun for me. Especially when they're
> really arrogant about it. I love that!
>
> You said you were going to post the emails and didn't, but still talked
> about doing it -- saying you could at any time -- and even went so far
> as to describe their contents as being able to prove that TK said
> something HE says he didn't. I simply called you on it; reminded you
> of what you said in August whenever you brought it up and told you your
> position was ridiculous without the evidence. And it is! You said
> you'd do something and haven't done it....for whatever reason. You can
> call it honor (or I suppose you would say "honour") if you want, but in
> every online argument I've ever been in, the guy who is RIGHT in the
> end is more esteemed than the one who stood on principle.
>
> TK's right -- you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. On one
> hand you honestly believe you're right; on the other to prove your
> position you'd have to "betray a confidence." However, the REASON you
> lose either way is because you CARE what other people think of you,
> despite what you've said about "popularity contests" in the past.
>
> The solution you're overlooking is that if you're right about the
> letters and everyone sees that TK is fibbing about them (as you say he
> is), he's outed as a LIAR. A bald-faced LIAR who can't be trusted at
> his word in private emails. Sure, you betrayed a confidence, but it
> was the confidence of a liar so is there really any harm done anyway?
> People will remember more that TK lied than they will that you
> published the emails. This is assuming, of course, that what you say
> is true and what he says is false. As of now, nobody knows. Except
> you. This is the crossroad you are at -- I just enjoy watching (and
> encouraging) the struggle.
>
> You're okay in my book, Phil. After all, I really don't know YOU any
> more than you know ME. I'm just one turkey in the big RGCP field
> trying to have some fun burying my beak in the latest bird who's mouth
> has made him the next casualty.
Good description, Matt. I suggest that Innes, Robtroll, Parr, and a
couple of others all suffer from "crab bucket syndrome." When one crab
tries to crawl out of the bucket, the other crabs pull him back inside.
Why do you think chess historians such as Winter, myself, Spinrad, etc,
are continually trashed on the newsgroups? The crabs want to pull us
back to their level.
| |
| Chess One 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
|
"Matt Nemmers" <qcchess@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1162789298.291845.230830@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Chess One wrote:
<..>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't not like you, Phil. Not at all. We've had our spats -- the
> Rolf Teuschen inspired Henry Miller debate of a few years ago?
Laugh! There's a blast from the past!
quote:
> -- but
> no more serious than I had with some of my apparently perceived
> "allies" on here (e.g. Neil Brennen's & my disagreement on the ethics
> behind the Sloan/Brock grudge match or his belief that I'm a bigot who
> wraps himself in the flag while discussing evolution vs. ID). These
> kinds of things, though they can be frustrating at the time, are what
> make us all come back to RGCP. We've all been on the receiving end of
> a gang bang here. "Wounded Turkey Syndrome." You've heard of it? If
> there are a bunch of turkeys inside a fence and one of them happens to
> get hurt, the others will start pecking at it with their beaks until
> the wounded one dies.
Its true, that some issues get so entirely personalised that the Turkeys
forget to plot about the Great Escape, and you know, Christmas is coming
 (
quote:
> That happens here in RGCP every day: Someone
> says something stupid (Rob: "Prozac is my boat! I was ON Prozac!"),
But he really did have a boat with that name - and its not so much a joke on
Brennan but that Brennan thinks he can go to some newsgroup and report back
to us in order to embarras Mitchell. Somewhere in all that the truth went
out the window and never came back.
quote:
> everyone laughs, and when they try to defend themselves against their
> stupidity, the pecking begins. This is why it's always been my policy
> to:
>
> 1. Admit my mistake immediately when I've been proven wrong (or when
> it's clear I've misunderstood);
> 2. Apologize to the person/people I've offended when I've been
> incorrect; and
> 3. If I don't believe I'm incorrect (or if it's my opinion), back up
> my position with facts or beliefs of mine that are "common-sensical"
> (at least to me).
yeah - that's what i said, a straight-shooter! and when i was 'in' i was a
marksman!
quote:
> You may still be wrong in the end, but this strategy leaves them no
> ammunition to throw in your face. "Sorry, I was wrong." has no
> rebuttal.
>
> I'm more of a masochist than anything, Phil. You see, I enjoy the
> pecking when it's at the expense of some poor bastard who either
> doesn't want to admit he was wrong, thinks he's always right, or says
> he's going to do something we all know he has no intention of doing (or
> they may attempt to do it, but won't be successful). This is why I
> have so much fun with Gordon Roy Parker.
I tried him a bit with Adorjan's Defence, and unfortunately he seemed out of
his depth at move 3. There are theoretical players and there are people who
actually play the game.
quote:
> People who don't or won't
> admit their faults are the MOST fun for me. Especially when they're
> really arrogant about it. I love that!
>
> You said you were going to post the emails and didn't, but still talked
> about doing it -- saying you could at any time -- and even went so far
> as to describe their contents as being able to prove that TK said
> something HE says he didn't.
If I said that then I was wrong. I was just going to post 'em and let people
see for themselves what any *nothing* was.
quote:
> I simply called you on it; reminded you
> of what you said in August whenever you brought it up and told you your
> position was ridiculous without the evidence. And it is! You said
> you'd do something and haven't done it....for whatever reason.
Yeah, for whatever reason! I would so vastly prefer if he just said what he
really thought - but okay, I am still diffident about putting out private
mail, even though I detested receiving it.
In August a neighbour, father of 3, died, age 47, on his bike, head-on into
a truck. I did a few neighborly things in preference.
quote:
> You can
> call it honor (or I suppose you would say "honour") if you want, but in
> every online argument I've ever been in, the guy who is RIGHT in the
> end is more esteemed than the one who stood on principle.
Yes - I understand what you say. If its a matter of looking good poor-old
Taylor is going to win!
quote:
> TK's right -- you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. On one
> hand you honestly believe you're right; on the other to prove your
> position you'd have to "betray a confidence." However, the REASON you
> lose either way is because you CARE what other people think of you,
> despite what you've said about "popularity contests" in the past.
What I care about is chess in this country. There are several standards of
it, but mostly from an in-bred crowd who only care to administer to the
current rotating crop of players. This has always seemed to me to be a vast
underemployment of the national federation USCF who still have some 30
employees.
When other people, much more considerable people in chess than myself, also
point out what ails us at national and int'l levls of chess organisation,
[and it is us!], then this is a more severe case - especially when these
voices which alert us not to fall asleep become rarer and rarer.
And when their own books aren't sold by any fair market criterion [I wonder
why? - I DO wonder why], then I don't believe that the fairies did it. When
an author/journalist with a national name gets fired by a new guy whose
previous exposure was scholastic chess in one state, and for the stated
reason of having taken advice from a 'few' people - is it okay to know who
those people are? Were they fairies too?
These are just a couple of examples about anonymous & private actions
contrasted with what is ostensibly the public good.
quote:
> The solution you're overlooking is that if you're right about the
> letters and everyone sees that TK is fibbing about them (as you say he
> is), he's outed as a LIAR. A bald-faced LIAR who can't be trusted at
> his word in private emails.
His 'only' characterisation that I have read here is his *nothing*
statement. This is, on its face, not nothing. I really don't give a damn
about publishing the e-mails since no one really seems to care too much
about the issue, and sometimes not even acknowledge that there ever was [and
is] book banning, or private influences which are in strong
contra-distinction to the public good.
quote:
> Sure, you betrayed a confidence, but it
> was the confidence of a liar so is there really any harm done anyway?
I have an impersonal approach. I really don't know any non-liars - telling
the truth is bloody hard ) ROFL.
What /I/ would like to do is take the lid of certain SUBJECTS, not as much
to embarras people, but to raise those subjects which seem to me to have
gone moldy in the dark out of the dark recesses of secret opinion and
influence - and the best and natural disinfectant is some light and air.
This is not some chess-alone issue. Look at the vast confusion in the
country about the current war - or even the state of the environment which
is perhaps even a greater threat to us by virtue of our own liberated
poisons. Why should men not speak their truth to each other - there is no
need to agree or not, but there is great need to have a variety of
perspectives, since of the war or the environment, I haven't heard any one
perspective, pro or con, which really seems like a viable one, all on its
self. E ...PLURIBUS... UNUM.
quote:
> People will remember more that TK lied than they will that you
> published the emails. This is assuming, of course, that what you say
> is true and what he says is false. As of now, nobody knows. Except
> you. This is the crossroad you are at -- I just enjoy watching (and
> encouraging) the struggle.
He really doesn't think he lied, but to me his own estimation is quite
beside the point of him having an influence on the chess scene, which is a
quite different way to come at things than Truth :: Lies absolutism, like a
crazy Mullah's interpretation.
I am interested in the /relative/ aspects of the issue, and admit that
everyone has an influence on things. What's the matter with fessing your
own?
quote:
> You're okay in my book, Phil. After all, I really don't know YOU any
> more than you know ME. I'm just one turkey in the big RGCP field
> trying to have some fun burying my beak in the latest bird who's mouth
> has made him the next casualty.
Glad you didn't decide to beat me up. It would have been tough, since you
would almost certainly have won, but I wouldn't have been able to back off.
[doh!]
One good thing about chess itself, is that it is a /ritual/ conflict, not an
actual one. And sometimes there is, these days, so very little between
tension and actual conflict.
Maybe you have to have been 'in' to understand exactly how much that
cultural neglect costs, and who the first people are to pay for it.
Cordially, Phil
| |
| Chess One 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
|
"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162815187.945916.271810@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> The debate that Innes repeated insisted I conducted with his
> antisemitic buddy Rolf? The one in which he though I was using the
> screen name "Matt Nemmers?"
Antisemitic? That is much funnier than Brennan knows. But I think Jews lie
too! Is that anti-semitic? Everybody bloody lies and everybody knows it.
And as for the second comment, I pass on that too. The issue was about how
Brennan came on to pose about sexual mores in society when he have never
even read Henry Miller? )
---------
quote:
> Good description, Matt. I suggest that Innes, Robtroll, Parr, and a
> couple of others all suffer from "crab bucket syndrome." When one crab
> tries to crawl out of the bucket, the other crabs pull him back inside.
> Why do you think chess historians such as Winter, myself, Spinrad, etc,
> are continually trashed on the newsgroups? The crabs want to pull us
> back to their level.
Good grief! If this guy ever wrote anything interesting about chess to gain
attention, rather than acting up as the only way to get attention, we would
all cheer from the roof-tops! He should get out more otherwise he'll wind up
as a little-winter, liking about as much in chess as the frozen dwarf
himself.
PI
| |
|
|
The Historian wrote:
quote:
> Matt Nemmers wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Does Robtroll think posting self-libels is a "trap?" If so, please trap
> me again. Robtroll, confess to something vile on the Internet. Keep
> doing it until you have no reputation left.
Sure this you distended bile duct. Neil Brennen, admitted and proven
internet Troll and stalker, printed false information about me from a
fake post I put in a newsgroup to attract his attention.
Funny thing is, the only ones "pecking" are the ones who are friends of
the tubby troll who got burned by the trap. Heck. They can continue to
bring it up all they want because it shows Brennen for what he really
is.
Lest anyone think that I have gotten down to wallow in the muds with
this internet troll-pig, don't worry . I am not going to do that. I am
not afraid to get a little dirty from time to time in the process of
preparing a hog for the breakfast table.
|
| |
|
|