|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > March 2006 > When Fair is Foul
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]
|
|
| Chess One 2006-03-12, 7:33 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1142110851.117201.180140@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Without knowing the full story, it is impossible for anyone to judge
> this fairly.
What is in question is Taylor Kingston's use of the word 'fair', especially
his own 'judgement', as he puts it.
Kingston thought that the Oxford's statement that Gulko 'was away from
chess' was a fair entry, when the guy was being beaten up by KGB and denied
playing opportunities. Perhaps if he really holds to that opinion then what
he means by Winter being fair can be viewed in the same light?
Kingston continues to use these terms, but won't define what he understands
about them, as if they had a secret meaning. On a previous occassion he
interviewed someone responsible for supressing refuseniks, and though he had
asked me, 'forgot' to raise the subject in his interview, then 'forgot' he
asked me.
That, by his demonstrated behavior, in his own definition of 'fair', and if
you can be that obscure, what does it matter what some even more obscure
critic has said?
Fair is foul! I say.
Kingston asks for more information below, but as in the Averbakh interview,
there seems no point in providing information to someone who then ignores
it, talks about fairness and his judgement, but continues to represent a
very one-sided perspective.
Phil Innes
quote:
> What we have here is only Parr's version of Saidy's side.
> In any event, Larry, the topic here is Winter's writings on the
> termination of the K-K match, and whether, as you have alleged, they
> constitute a claim that (A) the termination was a good thing, and (B)
> Campomanes handled it well. There being no such thing in what Winter
> actually wrote, you've been reduced to arguing that:
>
> (A) Anyone who criticizes Keene and Kasparov supports Campomanes, and
> (B) Winter once was rude to Anthony Saidy.
>
> Not, to use your phrase, Larry, "utterly convincing." Rather
> laughable, in fact.
>
| |
| help bot 2006-03-13, 5:36 am |
| Ah, there you are! 
My speculations were not spot-on (to say the least), as I had no idea
PI was complaining about TK, rather than GK, EW or perhaps even me.
In spite of the incident described by Phil Innes and what it *may*
tell us about TK, he still seems perfectly reasonable when he states
that all we were presented with was LP's version of Saidy's side. That
*is* all Larry Parr offered, and nothing more. No attempt whatsoever
to get the other side of the story, and no attempt whatsover by LP to
determine EW's sanity. We are supposed to simply accept Saidy's
pronouncement, and this is supposed to demonstrate that TK slipped-up.
If TK slipped-up, then he is not fairminded, and if he is not
fairminded....
But this misses the whole shebang. Nobody has to blindly accept TK's
opinions or evaluations, just as nobody has to blindly accept what
Saidy had to say as the "whole story". We are all able to make up our
own minds, and it is quite clear that some versions of stories given by
certain people are deliberately shorter than they ought to be, because
they are not after the truth, but something else.
My opinion is that EW is obsessed with attacking Keene. I don't
pretend to know the full story, but this strange obsession is quite
evident in his writing. Even in EW's scathing review of GK's book
where Keene played no real part, EW still manages to reveal himself in
the end; he attacks GK for having certain "associations", and by this
we all know exactly who he means -- there is no need to name names
precisely *because* of Winter's obsession.
Even so, EW could not find so many blunders if people like Keene
didn't make them in the first place. I don't kill the messenger; I
merely note EW's obsessive behavior and examine his "conclusions" that
much more carefully, expecting that personal bias may at any time, rear
its ugly head.
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-13, 7:35 pm |
| I will thank you not to 'paraphrase' some 50 words with 500 of your own,
meanwhile snipping the original. Phil Innes
"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142242088.023709.100220@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Ah, there you are!
>
> My speculations were not spot-on (to say the least), as I had no idea
> PI was complaining about TK, rather than GK, EW or perhaps even me.
>
>
> In spite of the incident described by Phil Innes and what it *may*
> tell us about TK, he still seems perfectly reasonable when he states
> that all we were presented with was LP's version of Saidy's side. That
> *is* all Larry Parr offered, and nothing more. No attempt whatsoever
> to get the other side of the story, and no attempt whatsover by LP to
> determine EW's sanity. We are supposed to simply accept Saidy's
> pronouncement, and this is supposed to demonstrate that TK slipped-up.
> If TK slipped-up, then he is not fairminded, and if he is not
> fairminded....
>
> But this misses the whole shebang. Nobody has to blindly accept TK's
> opinions or evaluations, just as nobody has to blindly accept what
> Saidy had to say as the "whole story". We are all able to make up our
> own minds, and it is quite clear that some versions of stories given by
> certain people are deliberately shorter than they ought to be, because
> they are not after the truth, but something else.
>
>
> My opinion is that EW is obsessed with attacking Keene. I don't
> pretend to know the full story, but this strange obsession is quite
> evident in his writing. Even in EW's scathing review of GK's book
> where Keene played no real part, EW still manages to reveal himself in
> the end; he attacks GK for having certain "associations", and by this
> we all know exactly who he means -- there is no need to name names
> precisely *because* of Winter's obsession.
>
> Even so, EW could not find so many blunders if people like Keene
> didn't make them in the first place. I don't kill the messenger; I
> merely note EW's obsessive behavior and examine his "conclusions" that
> much more carefully, expecting that personal bias may at any time, rear
> its ugly head.
>
| |
| help bot 2006-03-14, 5:32 am |
| Phil Innes accuses me of "snipping" his original text. This is
hardly possible as I am using Google, which itself "snips" (or leaves
out completely) the text to which I am replying.
In order for me to include any text, I have to (actively) quote it
myself. If the text which I am quoting itself includes quotation
marks, things get ugly.
Generally speaking, I quote only small sections, and sometimes I
simply reply, in the hope that most people reading my text are able to
"see" the posting it was in reply to.
I don't particularly like Google's format, because the threads are
broken up seemingly at random. With one click, I can put them in order
by date, but this still leaves things quite messy. OTOH, Google is
free.
My advice to PI is to download a good quote bot; I am just a help
bot.
|
| |
|
|