|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > August 2006 > Forgive me for being wrong.
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 |
Forgive me for being wrong.
|
|
|
| Louis,
Mr Parr was able to site the 1983 quote that I was unable to find. My
quote was apparently taken from something else that was repeting
WInter's charge. I am not as adept at "cutting and pasting" as you are.
For this shortcoming I am truely sorry and I beg the pardon of the
newsgroup. I suspect you could have found the quote Mr. Parr refrenced
had you truely been determined to do so as your are a highly skilled
researcher.
Rob
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> I wrote (14 Apr 2006 12:32:51 -0700):
> _
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
> _
> Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
> _
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
>
> _
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
>
>
> _
> False. I indicate WHO posted what I quote.
>
> _
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
>
> _
> I tried searching for the quote "being by Keene and
> Kasparov" and all I got was the Hugh Myers quote.
> Unlike Rob, I provide the link so that everyone can
> easily see it for themselves:
> _
> htttp://www.chesscafe.com//text/review341.pdf
> _
> I WANT people to be able to easily find what I am
> writing about. Rob does not name the "e-newsletter".
> He does not tell us what he put into google to get
> the quote. He identifies nothing specific to support
> his "understanding". I think we can all judge pretty
> well the degree of desire that Rob has to enable
> others to look at what he claims he saw and make
> their own judgment. What would Larry Parr
> say about Rob's "elemental decency"? What
> would GM Keene say about Rob's willingness to
> cite "chapter and verse"?
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:28 pm |
| Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
quote:
> posted 09/02/2002 in an e-newsletter:
>_
> "BCO - Batsford Chess Openings ... A single
> volume openings compendium mainly by
> Schiller and Tisdall, sold as being by Keene and
> Kasparov."
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
quote:
> The quote you give is from Hugh Myers, ...
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
quote:
> To make sure there is no confusion here, does
> Rob agree that he produced a quote of Hugh Myers
> and not Edward Winter? If so, it has no relevance
> to what I have posted.
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
quote:
> My understanding is it was Edward WInters. quote.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
quote:
> Does Rob have anything specific that he can cite to
> support his "understanding"? Why has Rob chosen
> not to give the name of the "e-newsletter" and information
> that would enable others to look at what he reports?
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
quote:
> I gave as much information as I saw you giving in your
> previous cut and pastes. I simply "googled" the quote
> and that what came up. Anyone is welcome to duplicate
> it.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 16:22:03 -0700):
quote:
> I indicate WHO posted what I quote.
>_
> I tried searching for the quote "being by Keene and
> Kasparov" and all I got was the Hugh Myers quote.
> Unlike Rob, I provide the link so that everyone can
>easily see it for themselves:
>_
> htttp://www.chesscafe.com//text/review341.pdf
>_
> I WANT people to be able to easily find what I am
> writing about. Rob does not name the "e-newsletter".
> He does not tell us what he put into google to get
> the quote. He identifies nothing specific to support
> his "understanding". I think we can all judge pretty
> well the degree of desire that Rob has to enable
> others to look at what he claims he saw and make
> their own judgment. What would Larry Parr
> say about Rob's "elemental decency"? What
> would GM Keene say about Rob's willingness to
> cite "chapter and verse"?
_
Rob wrote (17 Apr 2006 07:17:32 -0700):
quote:
> Forgive me for being wrong.
> ...
> My quote was apparently taken from something
> else that was repeting WInter's charge. I am not
> as adept at "cutting and pasting" as you are. For
> this shortcoming I am truely sorry and I beg the
> pardon of the newsgroup.
_
Is Rob at last confessing that he has nothing to
indicate that the "as being by" quote was written
by anyone other than Hugh Myers? If so, he
should be posting a public apology to Edward
Winter.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:28 pm |
| Rob wrote (17 Apr 2006 07:17:32 -0700):
quote:
> Mr Parr was able to site the 1983 quote ... I suspect
> you could have found the quote Mr. Parr refrenced
> had you truely been determined to do so as your are
> a highly skilled researcher.
_
I had no way to know that Larry Parr and/or GM Keene
think that the Edward Winter "sales ... merit" quote can
be fairly described as a "claim" "that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted". Indeed, it has taken about two and a half
months for GM Keene to apparently proclaim his position.
I am still waiting for Larry Parr to say whether or not he
agrees. See below for details.
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"winter clearly impugned authorship in
chess notes" - GM Keene quote reported
by Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 17:28:36 -0800)
_
_
"A much more vague claim than the one
from eleven and a half hours earlier."
- Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006 22:42:40 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?" - Louis
Blair (28 Jan 2006 16:03:20 -0800)
_
After about two and a half months:
_
"Yes. Da. Ja. Oui. SIi.
_
Explicitly: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
_
I am saying so loud and clear. For crying
out loud -- what else do Edward Winter's
words mean? He is saying as evidently
as possible that BCO was ghosted and
that Kasparov was not a genuine author."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry
Parr (15 Apr 2006 06:46:44 -0700)
_
_
"If I am following GM Keene correctly, he
is saying (at last) that the Edward Winter
'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly described
as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco ... was ghosted']. Does Larry Parr go
along with that or not?" - Louis Blair
(15 Apr 2006 20:51:11 -0700)
_
_
"It is now more than 24 hours later, and still
no answer, ... striking behavior for a person
who has been so supportive of GM Keene
in this thread.
_
One indication that we have is that, about a
month and a half ago (27 Feb 2006
20:22:25 -0800), Larry Parr declared that
GM Keene 'made the claim [that Edward
Winter claimed that Batsford Chess
Openings was ghosted]. Not I.'
_
Why wasn't Larry Parr also making the
claim at that point? The 'sales ... merit'
quote had been mentioned three times
in his notes. Why would Larry Parr be
reluctant to publicly agree if the meaning
is as clear as GM Keene seems to want
us to believe?
_
One more thing about this 15 Apr 2006
06:46:44 -0700 reported communication
from GM Keene:
_
'KEENE'S FINAL REPLY TO
LOUIS BLAIR'
_
Why does GM Keene seem so determined
to get away from this subject?" - Louis Blair
(16 Apr 2006 22:15:41 -0700)
| |
| Jerzy 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| Dnia 18-04-2006 o 01:02:21 Louis Blair <lblai@blackburn.edu> napisał:
quote:
> _
> Rob wrote (17 Apr 2006 07:17:32 -0700):
>
>
> _
> Is Rob at last confessing that he has nothing to
> indicate that the "as being by" quote was written
> by anyone other than Hugh Myers? If so, he
> should be posting a public apology to Edward
> Winter.
>
No, he admits only your ability of endless quoting and quoting and quoting
:D
--
Używam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/
| |
|
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
> _
> Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
> _
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
> _
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 16:22:03 -0700):
>
> _
> Rob wrote (17 Apr 2006 07:17:32 -0700):
>
>
> _
> Is Rob at last confessing that he has nothing to
> indicate that the "as being by" quote was written
> by anyone other than Hugh Myers? If so, he
> should be posting a public apology to Edward
> Winter.
Louie,
can you stop with the juvenile"is so and so saying" comments. Anyone
with an eye and a grain of sense can read what I wrote and knows what
it says. Are you implying by your writing that you cannot understand
English? ANd you never addressed the remander of the quote you snipped.
If you wanted to find the quote yourself you could have done so. You
have no interest in finding out the truth of any situation. You simplly
choose to use the myoptic view of a "number-lover" when looking at the
real world. It is no wonder our nations math scholars are so lacking in
ability. You can take my quote at face value. I simply have no more
time to waste on you or your indolent remarks. South Dakota is sure to
fiind a use for someone with your obvious lack of social skills or
natural talent. Your student reviews, which are posted on the
internet.. and you can find them yourself if you have the skill or the
intelligence, give a very accurate description you your classroom
skills. Teaching is an honorable profession, perhaps you should change
fields before you destroy another generation.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:31 pm |
| WHY I IGNORE LOUIE BLAIR
<Teaching is an honorable profession, perhaps you should change
fields before you destroy another generation. > -- Rob to Blair
Rob makes some good points re Louie Blair's
method, though he is wrong to call the man "indolent."
That, he is not.
One problem with Louie's questions, as I have
posted here in the past, is that some of them do not
make sense on their face. The man, whatever else he
may be, is no Clarence Darrow.
A couple of questions that he asked me, which
ignored the subjunctive, could not be answered
accurately as phrased. They were, in truth,
interrogative slop. One had to guess at their precise
meaning, leaving Louie an opening to suggest an
alternate meaning. Too, his tense sequence has left
ambiguities in the past.
Our Louie has never settled his accounts of past
intellectual business we were transacting, which is
why I currently ignore him.
| |
| help bot 2006-08-02, 10:31 pm |
| Larry Parr explains:
"Our Louie has never settled his accounts of past
intellectual business we were transacting, which is
why I currently ignore him."
Perhaps a simpler explanation is that Louis Blair keeps on pointing
out various inconsistencies in Larry Parr's postings, which can be very
annoying when you consider the fact that LP has no intention of ceasing
to post his slop.
I think the Nutty Professor quite possibly enjoys pasting together
ever longer listings of unanswered questions directed at Larry Parr.
The point is, perhaps, that even though he knows or strongly suspects
that LP will never answer, there will nevertheless be a permanent
record in the archives which clearly shows the peculiar problems in
Larry Parr's "thinking" techniques, his peculiar methods of argument.
-- help bot
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:31 pm |
| Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
quote:
> posted 09/02/2002 in an e-newsletter:
>_
> "BCO - Batsford Chess Openings ... A single
> volume openings compendium mainly by
> Schiller and Tisdall, sold as being by Keene and
> Kasparov."
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
quote:
> The quote you give is from Hugh Myers, ...
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
quote:
> To make sure there is no confusion here, does
> Rob agree that he produced a quote of Hugh Myers
> and not Edward Winter? If so, it has no relevance
> to what I have posted.
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
quote:
> My understanding is it was Edward WInters. quote.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
quote:
> Does Rob have anything specific that he can cite to
> support his "understanding"? Why has Rob chosen
> not to give the name of the "e-newsletter" and information
> that would enable others to look at what he reports?
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
quote:
> I gave as much information as I saw you giving in your
> previous cut and pastes. I simply "googled" the quote
> and that what came up. Anyone is welcome to duplicate
> it.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 16:22:03 -0700):
quote:
> I indicate WHO posted what I quote.
>_
> I tried searching for the quote "being by Keene and
> Kasparov" and all I got was the Hugh Myers quote.
> Unlike Rob, I provide the link so that everyone can
>easily see it for themselves:
>_
> htttp://www.chesscafe.com//text/review341.pdf
>_
> I WANT people to be able to easily find what I am
> writing about. Rob does not name the "e-newsletter".
> He does not tell us what he put into google to get
> the quote. He identifies nothing specific to support
> his "understanding". I think we can all judge pretty
> well the degree of desire that Rob has to enable
> others to look at what he claims he saw and make
> their own judgment. What would Larry Parr
> say about Rob's "elemental decency"? What
> would GM Keene say about Rob's willingness to
> cite "chapter and verse"?
_
Rob wrote (17 Apr 2006 07:17:32 -0700):
quote:
> Forgive me for being wrong.
> ...
> My quote was apparently taken from something
> else that was repeting WInter's charge. I am not
> as adept at "cutting and pasting" as you are. For
> this shortcoming I am truely sorry and I beg the
> pardon of the newsgroup.
_
I wrote (17 Apr 2006 16:02:21 -0700):
quote:
> Is Rob at last confessing that he has nothing to
> indicate that the "as being by" quote was written
> by anyone other than Hugh Myers? If so, he
> should be posting a public apology to Edward
> Winter.
_
Jerzy wrote (Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:10:12 +0200):
quote:
> No, he admits only your ability of endless quoting
> and quoting and quoting :D
_
Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700)
to me:
quote:
> can you stop with the juvenile"is so and so saying"
> comments.
_
If a comment or question seems reasonable to me, I
will post it regardles of whether or not Rob considers
it to be "juvenile".
_
Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700):
quote:
> Anyone with an eye and a grain of sense can read
> what I wrote and knows what it says. Are you
> implying by your writing that you cannot understand
> English?
_
I reproduced what Rob wrote (apparently) with regard
to the Hugh Myers quote. I reproduce it again, above,
along with my comment. Anyone can come to their
own conclusion on the matter.
_
Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700):
quote:
> ANd you never addressed the remander of the quote
> you snipped.
_
This is false. Apparently, Rob missed my 17 Apr 2006
16:03:34 -0700 note. It contains the words: "I had no
way to know". I would think that Rob would have no
trouble locating it with Google. However, unlike Rob
himself, I AM willing to offer further assestance if he
does a Google search and has trouble locating the
item.
_
Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700):
quote:
> If you wanted to find the quote yourself you could
> have done so.
_
I am not sure what quote Rob is referring to. I DID
find the "as being by" quote, but only in a location
that attributed it to Hugh Myers.
_
Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700):
quote:
> You have no interest in finding out the truth of any
> situation.
_
If someone does a Google search and has trouble
finding something that I have mentioned, I try to
help. Rob's style, on the other hand, includes such
things as citing an "e-newsletter" and withholding
the name.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:32 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (18 Apr 2006 23:01:51 -0700):
quote:
> One problem with Louie's questions, as I have
> posted here in the past, is that some of them do
> not make sense on their face. The man, whatever
> else he may be, is no Clarence Darrow.
>_
> A couple of questions that he asked me, which
> ignored the subjunctive, could not be answered
> accurately as phrased. They were, in truth,
> interrogative slop. One had to guess at their
> precise meaning, leaving Louie an opening to
> suggest an alternate meaning. Too, his tense
> sequence has left ambiguities in the past.
_
Ray Keene didn't seem to have any such problems
with one of my questions. Admittedly, it took him
about two and a half months, but, it seems to me
that he did finally indicate that he contends that the
Edward Winter 'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly
described as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution
to bco ... was ghosted']. Now, I am asking the
simple question: Does Larry Parr agree? (See
details below.) If there is anything wrong with that
question, why doesn't Larry Parr quote it, instead
of writing without specifics?
_
Larry Parr wrote (18 Apr 2006 23:01:51 -0700):
quote:
> Our Louie has never settled his accounts of past
> intellectual business we were transacting, which
> is why I currently ignore him.
_
Of course, Larry Parr is not really ignoring me if
he posts notes like this one. He is just avoiding
the issue of evidence for attacks that he has
posted (while expecting others to have the
"elemental decency" to provide "chapter and
verse" for what they claim).
_
_
Some background to this matter:
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"winter clearly impugned authorship in
chess notes" - GM Keene quote reported
by Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 17:28:36 -0800)
_
_
"A much more vague claim than the one
from eleven and a half hours earlier."
- Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006 22:42:40 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?" - Louis
Blair (28 Jan 2006 16:03:20 -0800)
_
After about two and a half months:
_
"Yes. Da. Ja. Oui. SIi.
_
Explicitly: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
_
I am saying so loud and clear. For crying
out loud -- what else do Edward Winter's
words mean? He is saying as evidently
as possible that BCO was ghosted and
that Kasparov was not a genuine author."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry
Parr (15 Apr 2006 06:46:44 -0700)
_
_
"If I am following GM Keene correctly, he
is saying (at last) that the Edward Winter
'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly described
as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco ... was ghosted']. Does Larry Parr go
along with that or not?" - Louis Blair
(15 Apr 2006 20:51:11 -0700)
_
_
"It is now more than 24 hours later, and still
no answer, ... striking behavior for a person
who has been so supportive of GM Keene
in this thread.
_
One indication that we have is that, about a
month and a half ago (27 Feb 2006
20:22:25 -0800), Larry Parr declared that
GM Keene 'made the claim [that Edward
Winter claimed that Batsford Chess
Openings was ghosted]. Not I.'
_
Why wasn't Larry Parr also making the
claim at that point? The 'sales ... merit'
quote had been mentioned three times
in his notes. Why would Larry Parr be
reluctant to publicly agree if the meaning
is as clear as GM Keene seems to want
us to believe?
_
One more thing about this 15 Apr 2006
06:46:44 -0700 reported communication
from GM Keene:
_
'KEENE'S FINAL REPLY TO
LOUIS BLAIR'
_
Why does GM Keene seem so determined
to get away from this subject?" - Louis Blair
(16 Apr 2006 22:15:41 -0700)
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:32 pm |
| Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
quote:
> posted 09/02/2002 in an e-newsletter:
>_
> "BCO - Batsford Chess Openings ... A single
> volume openings compendium mainly by
> Schiller and Tisdall, sold as being by Keene and
> Kasparov."
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
quote:
> The quote you give is from Hugh Myers, ...
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
quote:
> To make sure there is no confusion here, does
> Rob agree that he produced a quote of Hugh Myers
> and not Edward Winter? If so, it has no relevance
> to what I have posted.
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
quote:
> My understanding is it was Edward WInters. quote.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
quote:
> Does Rob have anything specific that he can cite to
> support his "understanding"? Why has Rob chosen
> not to give the name of the "e-newsletter" and information
> that would enable others to look at what he reports?
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
quote:
> I gave as much information as I saw you giving in your
> previous cut and pastes. I simply "googled" the quote
> and that what came up. Anyone is welcome to duplicate
> it.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 16:22:03 -0700):
quote:
> I indicate WHO posted what I quote.
>_
> I tried searching for the quote "being by Keene and
> Kasparov" and all I got was the Hugh Myers quote.
> Unlike Rob, I provide the link so that everyone can
>easily see it for themselves:
>_
> htttp://www.chesscafe.com//text/review341.pdf
>_
> I WANT people to be able to easily find what I am
> writing about. Rob does not name the "e-newsletter".
> He does not tell us what he put into google to get
> the quote. He identifies nothing specific to support
> his "understanding". I think we can all judge pretty
> well the degree of desire that Rob has to enable
> others to look at what he claims he saw and make
> their own judgment. What would Larry Parr
> say about Rob's "elemental decency"? What
> would GM Keene say about Rob's willingness to
> cite "chapter and verse"?
_
Rob wrote (17 Apr 2006 07:17:32 -0700):
quote:
> Forgive me for being wrong.
> ...
> My quote was apparently taken from something
> else that was repeting WInter's charge. I am not
> as adept at "cutting and pasting" as you are. For
> this shortcoming I am truely sorry and I beg the
> pardon of the newsgroup.
_
I wrote (17 Apr 2006 16:02:21 -0700):
quote:
> Is Rob at last confessing that he has nothing to
> indicate that the "as being by" quote was written
> by anyone other than Hugh Myers? If so, he
> should be posting a public apology to Edward
> Winter.
_
Jerzy wrote (Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:10:12 +0200):
quote:
> No, he admits only your ability of endless quoting
> and quoting and quoting :D
_
If Rob is not making the confession that I described,
then he should either make such a confession, or
provide details about an indication that the quote was
by someone other than Hugh Myers.
| |
|
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
> _
> Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
> _
quote:
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
> _
The only confusion was to you,and noone else.
quote:
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
>
I gave what was availableto me. Why did't Louie look up any
information?
_
quote:
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 16:22:03 -0700):
Why? Didn't you already know? Louie?
_[vbcol=seagreen]
That was not the link I had and you obviously found the quote without
any help. Bravo!
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
I am not being tested or graded by anyone. I did a cursury look and
simly posted what I found. I have not the luxury of time afforded an
adjunct professor in SD.
_
quote:
> Rob wrote (17 Apr 2006 07:17:32 -0700):
<Louie snipped the pertinant comments here from me so you can't read
them!> ...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> _
> I wrote (17 Apr 2006 16:02:21 -0700):
Again, Poor Louie can't comprehend the quote he just posted.
_[vbcol=seagreen]
> Jerzy wrote (Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:10:12 +0200):
LOL. Jerzy! :-)[vbcol=seagreen]
> _
> Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700)
> to me:
>
>
> _
> If a comment or question seems reasonable to me, I
> will post it regardles of whether or not Rob considers
> it to be "juvenile".
It it were an adult comment I would say "Yes" but your comment was
neither. Now you will post another question questioning what I ment by
"it was neither".
quote:
> _
> Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700):
>
>
> _
> I reproduced what Rob wrote (apparently) with regard
> to the Hugh Myers quote. I reproduce it again, above,
> along with my comment. Anyone can come to their
> own conclusion on the matter.
Then why don't you let them without all this tediousness? You must have
really nothing to do. May I suggest taking a long walk in the park not
far from your apartment? The fresh air will do you well.
quote:
> _
> Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700):
>
>
> _
> This is false. Apparently, Rob missed my 17 Apr 2006
> 16:03:34 -0700 note. It contains the words: "I had no
> way to know". I would think that Rob would have no
> trouble locating it with Google. However, unlike Rob
> himself, I AM willing to offer further assestance if he
> does a Google search and has trouble locating the
> item.
What? Assistance? sure. I will take it.
quote:
> _
> Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700):
>
You know the quote that was in question about 1000 lines ago. Or maybe
you lost track in all of these tedious reposting by you.[vbcol=seagreen]
> _
> I am not sure what quote Rob is referring to. I DID
> find the "as being by" quote, but only in a location
> that attributed it to Hugh Myers.
You could have found that post and the other quote provided by Larry
Parr if you had put your mind to it. After all, that is one of your
side lines isn't it?
quote:
> _
> Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700):
>
>
> _
> If someone does a Google search and has trouble
> finding something that I have mentioned, I try to
> help. Rob's style, on the other hand, includes such
> things as citing an "e-newsletter" and withholding
> the name.
You do that so well by not doing any research yourself and simply
getting others to do your leg work so that you can show condensation
towards their attempts. Very charitable of you Louie.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:32 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (18 Apr 2006 23:01:51 -0700):
quote:
> One problem with Louie's questions, as I have
> posted here in the past, is that some of them do
> not make sense on their face. The man, whatever
> else he may be, is no Clarence Darrow.
>_
> A couple of questions that he asked me, which
> ignored the subjunctive, could not be answered
> accurately as phrased. They were, in truth,
> interrogative slop. One had to guess at their
> precise meaning, leaving Louie an opening to
> suggest an alternate meaning. Too, his tense
> sequence has left ambiguities in the past.
_
Ray Keene didn't seem to have any such problems
with one of my questions. Admittedly, it took him
about two and a half months, but, it seems to me
that he did finally indicate that he contends that the
Edward Winter 'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly
described as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution
to bco ... was ghosted']. Now, I am asking the
simple question: Does Larry Parr agree? (See
details below.) If there is anything wrong with that
question, why doesn't Larry Parr quote it, instead
of writing without specifics?
_
Larry Parr wrote (18 Apr 2006 23:01:51 -0700):
quote:
> Our Louie has never settled his accounts of past
> intellectual business we were transacting, which
> is why I currently ignore him.
_
Of course, Larry Parr is not really ignoring me if
he posts notes like this one. He is just avoiding
the issue of evidence for attacks that he has
posted (although he expects others to have the
"elemental decency" to provide "chapter and
verse" for what they claim).
_
_
Some background to this matter:
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"winter clearly impugned authorship in
chess notes" - GM Keene quote reported
by Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 17:28:36 -0800)
_
_
"A much more vague claim than the one
from eleven and a half hours earlier."
- Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006 22:42:40 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?" - Louis
Blair (28 Jan 2006 16:03:20 -0800)
_
After about two and a half months:
_
"Yes. Da. Ja. Oui. SIi.
_
Explicitly: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
_
I am saying so loud and clear. For crying
out loud -- what else do Edward Winter's
words mean? He is saying as evidently
as possible that BCO was ghosted and
that Kasparov was not a genuine author."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry
Parr (15 Apr 2006 06:46:44 -0700)
_
_
"If I am following GM Keene correctly, he
is saying (at last) that the Edward Winter
'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly described
as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco ... was ghosted']. Does Larry Parr go
along with that or not?" - Louis Blair
(15 Apr 2006 20:51:11 -0700)
_
_
"It is now more than 24 hours later, and still
no answer, ... striking behavior for a person
who has been so supportive of GM Keene
in this thread.
_
One indication that we have is that, about a
month and a half ago (27 Feb 2006
20:22:25 -0800), Larry Parr declared that
GM Keene 'made the claim [that Edward
Winter claimed that Batsford Chess
Openings was ghosted]. Not I.'
_
Why wasn't Larry Parr also making the
claim at that point? The 'sales ... merit'
quote had been mentioned three times
in his notes. Why would Larry Parr be
reluctant to publicly agree if the meaning
is as clear as GM Keene seems to want
us to believe?
_
One more thing about this 15 Apr 2006
06:46:44 -0700 reported communication
from GM Keene:
_
'KEENE'S FINAL REPLY TO
LOUIS BLAIR'
_
Why does GM Keene seem so determined
to get away from this subject?" - Louis Blair
(16 Apr 2006 22:15:41 -0700)
| |
|
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> Larry Parr wrote (18 Apr 2006 23:01:51 -0700):
>
>
posted here in the past, is that some of them do
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
interrogative slop. One had to guess at their[vbcol=seagreen]
>
quote:
> _
> Ray Keene didn't seem to have any such problems
> with one of my questions. Admittedly, it took him
> about two and a half months, but, it seems to me
> that he did finally indicate that he contends that the
> Edward Winter 'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly
> described as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution
> to bco ... was ghosted']. Now, I am asking the
> simple question: Does Larry Parr agree? (See
> details below.) If there is anything wrong with that
> question, why doesn't Larry Parr quote it, instead
> of writing without specifics?
>
> _
quote:
> Larry Parr wrote (18 Apr 2006 23:01:51 -0700):
>
quote:
>
> _
quote:
> Of course, Larry Parr is not really ignoring me if
> he posts notes like this one. He is just avoiding
> the issue of evidence for attacks that he has
> posted (although he expects others to have the
> "elemental decency" to provide "chapter and
> verse" for what they claim).
> _
> _
> Some background to this matter:
> _
quote:
> "Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
> contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
> ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
> Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
> _
> _
quote:
> "Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
> else back this up with a quote from a
> verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
> 10:04:33 -0800)
> _
> _
quote:
> "winter clearly impugned authorship in
> chess notes" - GM Keene quote reported
> by Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 17:28:36 -0800)
> _
>
_
quote:
> "A much more vague claim than the one
> from eleven and a half hours earlier."
> - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006 22:42:40 -0800)
> _
> _
> "WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
> _
> By GM Raymond Keene
> _
> Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
> Kasparov. Is his name there more for
>
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
quote:
> communication reported by Larry Parr
> (27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
> _
> _
> "Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
> contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
> can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
>
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
quote:
> chess openings was ghosted'?" - Louis
> Blair (28 Jan 2006 16:03:20 -0800)
> _
> After about two and a half months:
> _
> "Yes. Da. Ja. Oui. SIi.
> _
> Explicitly: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
> _
> I am saying so loud and clear. For crying
> out loud -- what else do Edward Winter's
> words mean? He is saying as evidently
> as possible that BCO was ghosted and
>
that Kasparov was not a genuine author."
quote:
> - GM Keene quote reported by Larry
> Parr (15 Apr 2006 06:46:44 -0700)
> _
>
_
quote:
> "If I am following GM Keene correctly, he
> is saying (at last) that the Edward Winter
> 'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly described
>
as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
quote:
> bco ... was ghosted']. Does Larry Parr go
> along with that or not?" - Louis Blair
> (15 Apr 2006 20:51:11 -0700)
> _
Why do you ask? Would anyone offer to post something on anothers behalf
if they di not agree with it without saying they did not agree?
_
quote:
> "It is now more than 24 hours later, and still
> no answer, ... striking behavior for a person
> who has been so supportive of GM Keene
> in this thread.
>
_
quote:
> One indication that we have is that, about a
> month and a half ago (27 Feb 2006
> 20:22:25 -0800), Larry Parr declared that
>
GM Keene 'made the claim [that Edward
quote:
> Winter claimed that Batsford Chess
> Openings was ghosted]. Not I.'
> _
> Why wasn't Larry Parr also making the
> claim at that point? The 'sales ... merit'
> quote had been mentioned three times
>
in his notes. Why would Larry Parr be
quote:
> reluctant to publicly agree if the meaning
> is as clear as GM Keene seems to want
> us to believe?
> _
> One more thing about this 15 Apr 2006
> 06:46:44 -0700 reported communication
> from GM Keene:
> _
> 'KEENE'S FINAL REPLY TO
>
LOUIS BLAIR'
quote:
> _
> Why does GM Keene seem so determined
> to get away from this subject?" - Louis Blair
> (16 Apr 2006 22:15:41 -0700)
WHat?
| |
| The Historian 2006-08-02, 10:32 pm |
|
Robtroll wrote:
quote:
>
As expected, the Robtroll had to try to dig up dirt on Dr. Blair
because it was losing the argument. Probably because it couldn't find
Dr. Blair's weight online, it fastened onto some student gossip at an
unnamed website. I doubt the material the Robtroll saw was indeed about
Dr. Blair; since it once claimed I was a teacher, accuracy is not this
troll's strong suit.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:33 pm |
| Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
quote:
> posted 09/02/2002 in an e-newsletter:
>_
> "BCO - Batsford Chess Openings ... A single
> volume openings compendium mainly by
> Schiller and Tisdall, sold as being by Keene and
> Kasparov."
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
quote:
> The quote you give is from Hugh Myers, ...
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
quote:
> To make sure there is no confusion here, does
> Rob agree that he produced a quote of Hugh Myers
> and not Edward Winter? If so, it has no relevance
> to what I have posted.
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
quote:
> My understanding is it was Edward WInters. quote.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
quote:
> Does Rob have anything specific that he can cite to
> support his "understanding"? Why has Rob chosen
> not to give the name of the "e-newsletter" and information
> that would enable others to look at what he reports?
_
Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> I gave what was availableto me.
_
Wasn't the name of the "e-newsletter" available to Rob
when he found the quote?
_
Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> Why did't Louie look up any information?
_
I DID find the "as being by" quote, but only in a location
that attributed it to Hugh Myers.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:33 pm |
| Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
quote:
> posted 09/02/2002 in an e-newsletter:
>_
> "BCO - Batsford Chess Openings ... A single
> volume openings compendium mainly by
> Schiller and Tisdall, sold as being by Keene and
> Kasparov."
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
quote:
> The quote you give is from Hugh Myers, ...
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
quote:
> To make sure there is no confusion here, does
> Rob agree that he produced a quote of Hugh Myers
> and not Edward Winter? If so, it has no relevance
> to what I have posted.
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
quote:
> My understanding is it was Edward WInters. quote.
_
Rob adds (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> The only confusion was to you,and noone else.
_
Nevertheless, as everyone can see, at the time, Rob
thought it was appropriate to indicate (see above)
that it was still his "understanding" that it was an
Edward Winter quote. No specific supporting
evidence was identified, of course. And, since then,
he has started the "Forgive me for being wrong"
thread.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:33 pm |
| Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
quote:
> posted 09/02/2002 in an e-newsletter:
>_
> "BCO - Batsford Chess Openings ... A single
> volume openings compendium mainly by
> Schiller and Tisdall, sold as being by Keene and
> Kasparov."
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
quote:
> The quote you give is from Hugh Myers, ...
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
quote:
> To make sure there is no confusion here, does
> Rob agree that he produced a quote of Hugh Myers
> and not Edward Winter? If so, it has no relevance
> to what I have posted.
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
quote:
> My understanding is it was Edward WInters. quote.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
quote:
> Does Rob have anything specific that he can cite to
> support his "understanding"? Why has Rob chosen
> not to give the name of the "e-newsletter" and information
> that would enable others to look at what he reports?
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
quote:
> I gave as much information as I saw you giving in your
> previous cut and pastes.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 16:22:03 -0700):
quote:
> I indicate WHO posted what I quote.
_
Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> Why?
_
In order to make it easier for people to find
and examine my sources.
_
Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> Didn't you already know? Louie?
_
Already know what?
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:33 pm |
| Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
quote:
> posted 09/02/2002 in an e-newsletter:
>_
> "BCO - Batsford Chess Openings ... A single
> volume openings compendium mainly by
> Schiller and Tisdall, sold as being by Keene and
> Kasparov."
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
quote:
> The quote you give is from Hugh Myers, ...
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
quote:
> To make sure there is no confusion here, does
> Rob agree that he produced a quote of Hugh Myers
> and not Edward Winter? If so, it has no relevance
> to what I have posted.
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
quote:
> My understanding is it was Edward WInters. quote.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
quote:
> Does Rob have anything specific that he can cite to
> support his "understanding"? Why has Rob chosen
> not to give the name of the "e-newsletter" and information
> that would enable others to look at what he reports?
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
quote:
> I gave as much information as I saw you giving in your
> previous cut and pastes. I simply "googled" the quote
> and that what came up. Anyone is welcome to duplicate
> it.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 16:22:03 -0700):
quote:
> I indicate WHO posted what I quote.
>_
> I tried searching for the quote "being by Keene and
> Kasparov" and all I got was the Hugh Myers quote.
> Unlike Rob, I provide the link so that everyone can
>easily see it for themselves:
>_
> htttp://www.chesscafe.com//text/review341.pdf
>_
> I WANT people to be able to easily find what I am
> writing about. Rob does not name the "e-newsletter".
> He does not tell us what he put into google to get
> the quote. He identifies nothing specific to support
> his "understanding". I think we can all judge pretty
> well the degree of desire that Rob has to enable
> others to look at what he claims he saw and make
> their own judgment. What would Larry Parr
> say about Rob's "elemental decency"? What
> would GM Keene say about Rob's willingness to
> cite "chapter and verse"?
_
Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> That was not the link I had and you obviously found
> the quote without any help. Bravo!
_
The issue is not finding a location for the quote. The
issue is finding support for Rob's claimed "understanding"
that Edward Winter was the one who was quoted.
_
Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> I am not being tested or graded by anyone. I did a
> cursury look and simly posted what I found. I have not
> the luxury of time afforded an adjunct professor in SD.
_
Rob has now had the luxury of time to post eight notes
in this thread in the last four days. If a person chooses
to be part of a public attack, he should (in my opinion)
be prepared to cooperate with those wanting to
examine the supposed evidence. I guess Rob does
not feel the same way.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:33 pm |
| Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
quote:
> posted 09/02/2002 in an e-newsletter:
>_
> "BCO - Batsford Chess Openings ... A single
> volume openings compendium mainly by
> Schiller and Tisdall, sold as being by Keene and
> Kasparov."
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
quote:
> The quote you give is from Hugh Myers, ...
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
quote:
> To make sure there is no confusion here, does
> Rob agree that he produced a quote of Hugh Myers
> and not Edward Winter? If so, it has no relevance
> to what I have posted.
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
quote:
> My understanding is it was Edward WInters. quote.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
quote:
> Does Rob have anything specific that he can cite to
> support his "understanding"? Why has Rob chosen
> not to give the name of the "e-newsletter" and information
> that would enable others to look at what he reports?
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
quote:
> I gave as much information as I saw you giving in your
> previous cut and pastes. I simply "googled" the quote
> and that what came up. Anyone is welcome to duplicate
> it.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 16:22:03 -0700):
quote:
> I indicate WHO posted what I quote.
>_
> I tried searching for the quote "being by Keene and
> Kasparov" and all I got was the Hugh Myers quote.
> Unlike Rob, I provide the link so that everyone can
>easily see it for themselves:
>_
> htttp://www.chesscafe.com//text/review341.pdf
>_
> I WANT people to be able to easily find what I am
> writing about. Rob does not name the "e-newsletter".
> He does not tell us what he put into google to get
> the quote. He identifies nothing specific to support
> his "understanding". I think we can all judge pretty
> well the degree of desire that Rob has to enable
> others to look at what he claims he saw and make
> their own judgment. What would Larry Parr
> say about Rob's "elemental decency"? What
> would GM Keene say about Rob's willingness to
> cite "chapter and verse"?
_
Rob wrote (17 Apr 2006 07:17:32 -0700):
quote:
> Forgive me for being wrong.
> ...
> My quote was apparently taken from something
> else that was repeting WInter's charge. I am not
> as adept at "cutting and pasting" as you are. For
> this shortcoming I am truely sorry and I beg the
> pardon of the newsgroup.
_
Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> Louie snipped the pertinant comments here from
> me so you can't read them!
_
Comments attacking me (and apparently having
nothing to do with who wrote the "as being by" quote)
were reproduced and addressed by me in a separate
note that I posted on 17 Apr 2006 16:03:34 -0700.
It contains the words: "I had no way to know".
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:33 pm |
| Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
quote:
> posted 09/02/2002 in an e-newsletter:
>_
> "BCO - Batsford Chess Openings ... A single
> volume openings compendium mainly by
> Schiller and Tisdall, sold as being by Keene and
> Kasparov."
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
quote:
> The quote you give is from Hugh Myers, ...
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
quote:
> To make sure there is no confusion here, does
> Rob agree that he produced a quote of Hugh Myers
> and not Edward Winter? If so, it has no relevance
> to what I have posted.
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
quote:
> My understanding is it was Edward WInters. quote.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
quote:
> Does Rob have anything specific that he can cite to
> support his "understanding"? Why has Rob chosen
> not to give the name of the "e-newsletter" and information
> that would enable others to look at what he reports?
_
Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
quote:
> I gave as much information as I saw you giving in your
> previous cut and pastes. I simply "googled" the quote
> and that what came up. Anyone is welcome to duplicate
> it.
_
I wrote (15 Apr 2006 16:22:03 -0700):
quote:
> I indicate WHO posted what I quote.
>_
> I tried searching for the quote "being by Keene and
> Kasparov" and all I got was the Hugh Myers quote.
> Unlike Rob, I provide the link so that everyone can
>easily see it for themselves:
>_
> htttp://www.chesscafe.com//text/review341.pdf
>_
> I WANT people to be able to easily find what I am
> writing about. Rob does not name the "e-newsletter".
> He does not tell us what he put into google to get
> the quote. He identifies nothing specific to support
> his "understanding". I think we can all judge pretty
> well the degree of desire that Rob has to enable
> others to look at what he claims he saw and make
> their own judgment. What would Larry Parr
> say about Rob's "elemental decency"? What
> would GM Keene say about Rob's willingness to
> cite "chapter and verse"?
_
Rob wrote (17 Apr 2006 07:17:32 -0700):
quote:
> Forgive me for being wrong.
> ...
> My quote was apparently taken from something
> else that was repeting WInter's charge. I am not
> as adept at "cutting and pasting" as you are. For
> this shortcoming I am truely sorry and I beg the
> pardon of the newsgroup.
_
I wrote (17 Apr 2006 16:02:21 -0700):
quote:
> Is Rob at last confessing that he has nothing to
> indicate that the "as being by" quote was written
> by anyone other than Hugh Myers? If so, he
> should be posting a public apology to Edward
> Winter.
_
Jerzy wrote (Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:10:12 +0200):
quote:
> No, he admits only your ability of endless quoting
> and quoting and quoting :D
_
Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700):
quote:
> Anyone with an eye and a grain of sense can read
> what I wrote and knows what it says. Are you
> implying by your writing that you cannot understand
> English?
_
I wrote (19 Apr 2006 11:10:29 -0700):
quote:
> I reproduced what Rob wrote (apparently) with regard
> to the Hugh Myers quote. I reproduce it again, above,
> along with my comment. Anyone can come to their
> own conclusion on the matter.
_
Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> Then why don't you let them without all this tediousness?
_
Rob may prefer that I not respond to notes directed at me,
and that I not ask questions that seem reasonable to me,
but he will not necessarily get his wish.
_
Rob wrote (18 Apr 2006 19:32:17 -0700):
quote:
> ANd you never addressed the remander of the quote
> you snipped.
_
I wrote (19 Apr 2006 11:10:29 -0700):
quote:
> This is false. Apparently, Rob missed my 17 Apr 2006
> 16:03:34 -0700 note. It contains the words: "I had no
> way to know". I would think that Rob would have no
> trouble locating it with Google. However, unlike Rob
> himself, I AM willing to offer further assestance if he
> does a Google search and has trouble locating the
> item.
_
Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> What? Assistance? sure. I will take it.
_
If Rob will describe what he did in an unsuccessful
attempt to use google to find my 17 Apr 2006
16:03:34 -0700 note, I shall attempt to indicate what
he did wrong.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:33 pm |
| Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> You could have found ... the ... quote provided by
> Larry Parr if you had put your mind to it.
_
I had no way to know that Larry Parr and/or GM Keene
think that the Edward Winter "sales ... merit" quote can
be fairly described as a "claim" "that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted". Indeed, it has taken about two and a half
months for GM Keene to apparently proclaim his position.
I am still waiting for Larry Parr to say whether or not he
agrees. See below for details.
_
Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> You do that so well by not doing any research yourself
> and simply getting others to do your leg work so that
> you can show condensation towards their attempts.
> Very charitable of you Louie.
_
I see no reason to be charitable to people who resist
identifying the evidence for their public attacks, avoid
being specific about what their evidence supposedly
demonstrates, and/or fail to acknowledge an inability
to justify a previously stated public attack.
_
Some background:
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"winter clearly impugned authorship in
chess notes" - GM Keene quote reported
by Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 17:28:36 -0800)
_
_
"A much more vague claim than the one
from eleven and a half hours earlier."
- Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006 22:42:40 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?" - Louis
Blair (28 Jan 2006 16:03:20 -0800)
_
After about two and a half months:
_
"Yes. Da. Ja. Oui. SIi.
_
Explicitly: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
_
I am saying so loud and clear. For crying
out loud -- what else do Edward Winter's
words mean? He is saying as evidently
as possible that BCO was ghosted and
that Kasparov was not a genuine author."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry
Parr (15 Apr 2006 06:46:44 -0700)
_
_
"If I am following GM Keene correctly, he
is saying (at last) that the Edward Winter
'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly described
as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco ... was ghosted']. Does Larry Parr go
along with that or not?" - Louis Blair
(15 Apr 2006 20:51:11 -0700)
_
_
"It is now more than 24 hours later, and still
no answer, ... striking behavior for a person
who has been so supportive of GM Keene
in this thread.
_
One indication that we have is that, about a
month and a half ago (27 Feb 2006
20:22:25 -0800), Larry Parr declared that
GM Keene 'made the claim [that Edward
Winter claimed that Batsford Chess
Openings was ghosted]. Not I.'
_
Why wasn't Larry Parr also making the
claim at that point? The 'sales ... merit'
quote had been mentioned three times
in his notes. Why would Larry Parr be
reluctant to publicly agree if the meaning
is as clear as GM Keene seems to want
us to believe?
_
One more thing about this 15 Apr 2006
06:46:44 -0700 reported communication
from GM Keene:
_
'KEENE'S FINAL REPLY TO
LOUIS BLAIR'
_
Why does GM Keene seem so determined
to get away from this subject?" - Louis Blair
(16 Apr 2006 22:15:41 -0700)
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:33 pm |
| I wrote (15 Apr 2006 20:51:11 -0700):
quote:
> If I am following GM Keene correctly, he is saying (at
> last) that the Edward Winter "sales ... merit" quote
> can be fairly described as such a 'claim'. Does Larry
> Parr go along with that or not?
_
Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 16:44:34 -0700):
quote:
> Why do you ask? Would anyone offer to post something
> on anothers behalf if they di not agree with it without saying
> they did not agree?
_
I do not consider it safe to make any assumptions about
what Larry Parr might or might not do.
_
Some background:
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"winter clearly impugned authorship in
chess notes" - GM Keene quote reported
by Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 17:28:36 -0800)
_
_
"A much more vague claim than the one
from eleven and a half hours earlier."
- Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006 22:42:40 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?" - Louis
Blair (28 Jan 2006 16:03:20 -0800)
_
After about two and a half months:
_
"Yes. Da. Ja. Oui. SIi.
_
Explicitly: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
_
I am saying so loud and clear. For crying
out loud -- what else do Edward Winter's
words mean? He is saying as evidently
as possible that BCO was ghosted and
that Kasparov was not a genuine author."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry
Parr (15 Apr 2006 06:46:44 -0700)
_
_
"If I am following GM Keene correctly, he
is saying (at last) that the Edward Winter
'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly described
as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco ... was ghosted']. Does Larry Parr go
along with that or not?" - Louis Blair
(15 Apr 2006 20:51:11 -0700)
_
_
"It is now more than 24 hours later, and still
no answer, ... striking behavior for a person
who has been so supportive of GM Keene
in this thread.
_
One indication that we have is that, about a
month and a half ago (27 Feb 2006
20:22:25 -0800), Larry Parr declared that
GM Keene 'made the claim [that Edward
Winter claimed that Batsford Chess
Openings was ghosted]. Not I.'
_
Why wasn't Larry Parr also making the
claim at that point? The 'sales ... merit'
quote had been mentioned three times
in his notes. Why would Larry Parr be
reluctant to publicly agree if the meaning
is as clear as GM Keene seems to want
us to believe?
_
One more thing about this 15 Apr 2006
06:46:44 -0700 reported communication
from GM Keene:
_
'KEENE'S FINAL REPLY TO
LOUIS BLAIR'
_
Why does GM Keene seem so determined
to get away from this subject?" - Louis Blair
(16 Apr 2006 22:15:41 -0700)
| |
|
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
> _
> Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
> _
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
> _
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 16:22:03 -0700):
>
> _
> Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
>
>
> _
> The issue is not finding a location for the quote. The
> issue is finding support for Rob's claimed "understanding"
> that Edward Winter was the one who was quoted.
>
> _
> Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
>
>
> _
> Rob has now had the luxury of time to post eight notes
> in this thread in the last four days. If a person chooses
> to be part of a public attack, he should (in my opinion)
> be prepared to cooperate with those wanting to
> examine the supposed evidence. I guess Rob does
> not feel the same way.
Louie guesses? and he counts the total number of posts. So his fixation
is a side effect of OCD,
| |
|
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 02:55:15 -0700):
> _
quote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Apr 2006 06:24:20 -0700):
>
_
quote:
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 12:41:51 -0700):
>
_
quote:
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 14:03:46 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:36:18 -0700):
> _
> Rob wrote (15 Apr 2006 15:48:00 -0700):
> _
> I wrote (15 Apr 2006 16:22:03 -0700):
>
Not the same link.
quote:
Assumong anyone really cares.
[vbcol=seagreen]
winter kasparov bco ghosted
[vbcol=seagreen]
Why should Larry Parr has to comment about anything that I write and
what difference does it make? What would Edward Winter say about Louie,
The Count?
[vbcol=seagreen]
Not being a biblical scholar I am unaccostomed to citing anything
chaper and verse as I think it shows little natural thinking ability to
be able to do so.
_[vbcol=seagreen]
> Rob wrote (17 Apr 2006 07:17:32 -0700):
>
> _
> Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
>
>
> _
> Comments attacking me (and apparently having
> nothing to do with who wrote the "as being by" quote)
> were reproduced and addressed by me in a separate
Not addresing them in any context where they may be followed is in
effect hiding them and removing them from the conversation. No link to
that conversation and this was ever done so readers could judge for
themselves, as you so aptly like to claim, Louie.
quote:
> note that I posted on 17 Apr 2006 16:03:34 -0700.
> It contains the words: "I had no way to know".
Had no way to know what? What the topic originally was? I have no doubt
the such a legnthy post might render one with indolent tendencies
unable to keep their train of thought.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:34 pm |
|
Rob wrote:
quote:
> Louis Blair wrote:
>
> _
> _
>
>
> Not the same link.
> Assumong [sic] anyone really cares.
Ahem, Rob, people do care. Citing one's source in something like this
is fundamental. Otherwise we could all just make up our "facts" as we
go along, like Larry Parr.
Since I pointed out your mistake in attributing to Winter a quote
from Myers, you've made half-hearted left-handed apologies while still
trying to make out that Dr. Blair did something wrong in objecting to
the misattribution. Neither graceful nor consistent.
quote:
> winter kasparov bco ghosted
>
>
> Why should Larry Parr has to comment about anything that I write and
> what difference does it make? What would Edward Winter say about Louie,
> The Count?
>
>
> Not being a biblical scholar I am unaccostomed to citing anything
> chaper and verse as I think it shows little natural thinking ability to
> be able to do so.
An absurd comment. On the contrary, a thinking person wants to know
the source of a claim. It is the unthinking who don't bother with
factual support, and take unsupported claims at face value.
[vbcol=seagreen]
No, it was taken from a book review of mine, a book by Hugh Myers
that had little to do with Winter, and nothing at all to do with Winter
regarding the quote itself. I respectfully suggest that it's wise to
avoid making quick assumptions and leaping to conclusions.
| |
|
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
> Rob wrote:
If I said I was sorry, the obviously I admitted a mistake._[vbcol=seagreen]
My "understanding" is based upon my cursory quick look. My
understanding was based upon that. Which I have admidded many time
previously to being an error.
_[vbcol=seagreen]
Been there and done that somewhere else in another thread I believe.
DOn't have time to "cut and past" that right now. I am sorry.
_[vbcol=seagreen]
Yes, I am a terriblt typist. I am sorry.
Taylor,[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ahem, Rob, people do care. Citing one's source in something like this
> is fundamental.
I do not disagree with this statement. :-)
quote:
>
quote:
> Otherwise we could all just make up our "facts" as we
quote:
> go along, like Larry Parr.
> Since I pointed out your mistake in attributing to Winter a quote
> from Myers, you've made half-hearted left-handed apologies while still
> trying to make out that Dr. Blair did something wrong in objecting to
> the misattribution. Neither graceful nor consistent.
I said I was sorry. What I tire of is when someone continues to make
the same questions without trying to drag out some hidden meaning from
what was written. Especially if I wrote it. I am not clever enough to
be successfully clandestine. I say exactly what I think and if I am
wrong I will readily admit it. For the record again ," I WAS WRONG on
what I had posted about the Winter quote. It was not the exact quote
but appears to be a quote from someone who may have read the original
quote attribute to this guy Winter about the BCO having "ghosted"
material from Kasparov".
quote:
I simply think that people are able to do their own work.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
quote:
> An absurd comment. On the contrary, a thinking person wants to know
> the source of a claim. It is the unthinking who don't bother with
> factual support, and take unsupported claims at face value.
>
Being from the "bible belt" the chapter and verse quote is a
quoquialism(sic).
WHile being given a chapter and verse it does little to get to the
truth other than showing a small portion of the information someone
else used to arrive at their opinion. It might be useful, I will agree
with that point. I do not think it is totally necesary however as it
simply leads to the tendancy to re-quote the same passages by rote
without any new understanding being arrived at through individual
research.
Rob
quote:
>
> No, it was taken from a book review of mine, a book by Hugh Myers
> that had little to do with Winter, and nothing at all to do with Winter
> regarding the quote itself. I respectfully suggest that it's wise to
> avoid making quick assumptions and leaping to conclusions.
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:34 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <taylor.kingston@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1145544638.828395.305190@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Ahem, Rob, people do care. Citing one's source in something like this
> is fundamental. Otherwise we could all just make up our "facts" as we
> go along, like Larry Parr.
> Since I pointed out your mistake in attributing to Winter a quote
> from Myers, you've made half-hearted left-handed apologies while still
> trying to make out that Dr. Blair did something wrong in objecting to
> the misattribution. Neither graceful nor consistent.
You have got to be kidding? If the remarks were obtained through the
postings of Louis Blair, isn't that the most likely outcome? An entire
collation of comments, which may or may not have any similar context?
-------
quote:
>
> An absurd comment. On the contrary, a thinking person wants to know
> the source of a claim.
Only if it makes sense!
quote:
> It is the unthinking who don't bother with
> factual support, and take unsupported claims at face value.
Like when a person reports a Russian who burocratically oppressed others,
and though knowing that there was factual support to suspect the person
would lie, then excuses himself by saying he was 'under-prepared'?
What a hypocrite!
quote:
>
> No, it was taken from a book review of mine, a book by Hugh Myers
> that had little to do with Winter, and nothing at all to do with Winter
> regarding the quote itself. I respectfully suggest that it's wise to
> avoid making quick assumptions and leaping to conclusions.
Says Captain 'peyote' who assumes on other people's behalf, non-stop.
Phil Innes
| |
| Jerzy 2006-08-02, 10:35 pm |
| Dnia 19-04-2006 o 22:09:25 Louis Blair <lblai@blackburn.edu> napisał:
quote:
>
> _
> Jerzy wrote (Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:10:12 +0200):
>
> _
> If Rob is not making the confession that I described,
> then he should either make such a confession, or
> provide details about an indication that the quote was
> by someone other than Hugh Myers.
Louis, Rob owes you neither a confession nor an apology. You want others
to apologize for crimes they have not committed. BTW when will you
apologize for your endless quoting and quoting and quoting ?
:D
--
Używam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:35 pm |
| Rob wrote (19 Apr 2006 14:55:27 -0700):
quote:
> Louie snipped the pertinant comments here from
> me so you can't read them!
_
I wrote (19 Apr 2006 18:52:53 -0700):
quote:
> Comments attacking me (and apparently having
> nothing to do with who wrote the "as being by" quote)
> were reproduced and addressed by me in a separate
> note that I posted on 17 Apr 2006 16:03:34 -0700.
> It contains the words: "I had no way to know".
_
Rob wrote (20 Apr 2006 07:02:03 -0700):
quote:
> Not addresing them in any context where they
> may be followed is in effect hiding them and
> removing them from the conversation.
_
I did not hide Rob's comments attacking me, or
remove them from the conversation. I reproduced
them clearly for all to see (along with my response)
in a note posted to this very thread on 17 Apr 2006
16:03:34 -0700.
_
Rob wrote (20 Apr 2006 07:02:03 -0700):
quote:
> No link to that conversation and this was ever done
> so readers could judge for themselves, as you so
> aptly like to claim, Louie.
_
I have provided precise information so that a person
can easily locate the note using Google. If Rob
describes what he did in an unsuccessful attempt
to use Google to find my 17 Apr 2006 16:03:34 -0700
note, I shall attempt to indicate what he did wrong.
| |
|
|
f I said I was sorry, the obviously I admitted a mistake._
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
My "understanding" is based upon my cursory quick look. My
understanding was based upon that. Which I have admidded many time
previously to being an error.
_[vbcol=seagreen]
Been there and done that somewhere else in another thread I believe.
DOn't have time to "cut and past" that right now. I am sorry.
_
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
Yes, I am a terriblt typist. I am sorry.
Taylor,[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ahem, Rob, people do care. Citing one's source in something like this
> is fundamental.
I do not disagree with this statement. :-)
quote:
> Otherwise we could all just make up our "facts" as we
> go along, like Larry Parr.
> Since I pointed out your mistake in attributing to Winter a quote
> from Myers, you've made half-hearted left-handed apologies while still
> trying to make out that Dr. Blair did something wrong in objecting to
> the misattribution. Neither graceful nor consistent.
I said I was sorry. What I tire of is when someone continues to make
the same questions without trying to drag out some hidden meaning from
what was written. Especially if I wrote it. I am not clever enough to
be successfully clandestine. I say exactly what I think and if I am
wrong I will readily admit it. For the record again ," I WAS WRONG on
what I had posted about the Winter quote. It was not the exact quote
but appears to be a quote from someone who may have read the original
quote attribute to this guy Winter about the BCO having "ghosted"
material from Kasparov".
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
I simply think that people are able to do their own work.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> An absurd comment. On the contrary, a thinking person wants to know
> the source of a claim. It is the unthinking who don't bother with
> factual support, and take unsupported claims at face value.
Being from the "bible belt" the chapter and verse quote is a
quoquialism(sic).
WHile being given a chapter and verse it does little to get to the
truth other than showing a small portion of the information someone
else used to arrive at their opinion. It might be useful, I will agree
with that point. I do not think it is totally necesary however as it
simply leads to the tendancy to re-quote the same passages by rote
without any new understanding being arrived at through individual
research.
Rob
|
| |
|
|