|
Home > Archive > Chess forum > June 2005 > Tee-Ball Batting Practice with Sam Sloan
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 |
Tee-Ball Batting Practice with Sam Sloan
|
|
| Taylor Kingston 2005-06-03, 8:32 pm |
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
> Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> As Sam might know if he ever took a Philosophy 101 course, his
> statement above is known as a "complex question fallacy," i.e. a
> question that contains an invalid assumption, the classic example being
> "When did you stop beating your wife?". So, I can't answer it as
> phrased.
>
>
> Sam, are you sure that wasn't Edward Winter you met?
>
>
> Actually, Sam, you have Larry Parr to thank for the attention. I
> generally paid you little heed until 22 April 2005. That day, Parr,
> under the heading "Newsgroup Myth," posted here:
>
> "I doubt that most readers here regard Sam as a liar ... He usually
> issues immediate corrections and often thanks nasty correspondents for
> information they provide."
>
> I simply decided to put this to the test. And you've been proving
> Parr wrong. Very wrong. Repeatedly. Over and over. Refusing to
> acknowledge facts as obvious as sunrise. Repeating errors and
> falsehoods after they've been clearly pointed out. It's really quite
> amazing. It turns out that Parr's statement was roughly equivalent
> to "I doubt that most readers here regard John Dillinger as a
> bank-robber." So I simply drew attention to some of your more
> egregious posts.
>
>
> Sam, no one need "resort to lying" to make you look ridiculous.
> That would be like importing sand to Arabia. Sorry, but I've just
> been reporting the facts. Besides being ethical, it's much easier
> than lying. You write, say, "I have never said X." I do a quick
> Google search, and find that last week you wrote "I, Sam Sloan, do
> hereby say X." Piece of cake. You say "No database has a Boogaloo
> Gambit game from before 1965." I do a quick search on ChessBase, and
> find dozens. Easy as pie. You say "So-and-so did such-and-such," I ask
> "What is your evidence," and you never present any. When it's this
> simple, why bother to lie?
> Pointing out your errors, falsehoods, fallacies and absurdities is
> something almost anyone of average intelligence can do, with the ease
> of Barry Bonds hitting home runs off a tee. But that's the problem:
> it's too easy. It's fun for a while, but only a while; there's no
> challenge.
> So after the "Altering Sam Sloan" contest, I will probably ease off.
> I do not expect that you will change your ways, but I will not be
> paying any particular attention to you. Which is what I recommend to
> everyone else on the group.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-06-03, 8:32 pm |
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
> Why does Taylor Kingston always like to lie?
As Sam might know if he ever took a Philosophy 101 course, his
statement above is known as a "complex question fallacy," i.e. a
question that contains an invalid assumption, the classic example being
"When did you stop beating your wife?". So, I can't answer it as
phrased.
quote:
> I used to have great respect for Taylor Kingston and I told him so on
> the one occasion that we met.
Sam, are you sure that wasn't Edward Winter you met?
quote:
> Then, about one month ago, for no reason at all that I am aware of,
> Taylor Kingston started attacking me several times every day.
Actually, Sam, you have Larry Parr to thank for the attention. I
generally paid you little heed until 22 April 2005. That day, Parr,
under the heading "Newsgroup Myth," posted here:
"I doubt that most readers here regard Sam as a liar ... He usually
issues immediate corrections and often thanks nasty correspondents for
information they provide."
I simply decided to put this to the test. And you've been proving
Parr wrong. Very wrong. Repeatedly. Over and over. Refusing to
acknowledge facts as obvious as sunrise. Repeating errors and
falsehoods after they've been clearly pointed out. It's really quite
amazing. It turns out that Parr's statement was roughly equivalent
to "I doubt that most readers here regard John Dillinger as a
bank-robber." So I simply drew attention to some of your more
egregious posts.
quote:
> Taylor Kingston has resorted to constantly lying about me, misquoting
> me and so on.
Sam, no one need "resort to lying" to make you look ridiculous.
That would be like importing sand to Arabia. Sorry, but I've just
been reporting the facts. Besides being ethical, it's much easier
than lying. You write, say, "I have never said X." I do a quick
Google search, and find that last week you wrote "I, Sam Sloan, do
hereby say X." Piece of cake. You say "No database has a Boogaloo
Gambit game from before 1965." I do a quick search on ChessBase, and
find dozens. Easy as pie. You say "So-and-so did such-and-such," I ask
"What is your evidence," and you never present any. When it's this
simple, why bother to lie?
Pointing out your errors, falsehoods, fallacies and absurdities is
something almost anyone of average intelligence can do, with the ease
of Barry Bonds hitting home runs off a tee. But that's the problem:
it's too easy. It's fun for a while, but only a while; there's no
challenge.
So after the "Altering Sam Sloan" contest, I will probably ease off.
I do not expect that you will change your ways, but I will not be
paying any particular attention to you. Which is what I recommend to
everyone else on the group.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-06-04, 8:31 pm |
| Well, I'll run this one more time, just to see if Mr. "Reynolds"
immediately posts over it again.
Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
> Why does Taylor Kingston always like to lie?
As Sam might know if he ever took a Philosophy 101 course, his
statement above is known as a "complex question fallacy," i.e. a
question that contains an invalid assumption, the classic example being
"When did you stop beating your wife?". So, I can't answer it as
phrased.
quote:
> I used to have great respect for Taylor Kingston and I told him so on
> the one occasion that we met.
Sam, are you sure that wasn't Edward Winter you met?
quote:
> Then, about one month ago, for no reason at all that I am aware of,
> Taylor Kingston started attacking me several times every day.
Actually, Sam, it's been nothing like "several times every day. But
whatever the frequency, you have Larry Parr to thank for the attention.
I generally paid you little heed until 22 April 2005. That day, Parr,
under the heading "Newsgroup Myth," posted here:
"I doubt that most readers here regard Sam as a liar ... He usually
issues immediate corrections and often thanks nasty correspondents for
information they provide."
I simply decided to put this to the test. And you've been proving
Parr wrong. Very wrong. Repeatedly. Over and over. Refusing to
acknowledge facts as obvious as sunrise. Repeating errors and
falsehoods after they've been clearly pointed out. It's really quite
amazing. It turns out that Parr's statement was roughly equivalent to
"I doubt that most readers here regard John Dillinger as a
bank-robber." So I simply drew attention to some of your more egregious
posts.
quote:
> Taylor Kingston has resorted to constantly lying about me, misquoting
> me and so on.
Sam, no one need "resort to lying" to make you look ridiculous. That
would be like importing sand to Arabia. Sorry, but I've just been
reporting the facts. Besides being ethical, it's much easier than
lying. You write, say, "I have never said X." I do a quick Google
search, and find that last week you wrote "I, Sam Sloan, do hereby say
X." Piece of cake. You say "No database has a Boogaloo Gambit game from
before 1965." I do a quick search on ChessBase, and find dozens. Easy
as pie. You say "So-and-so did such-and-such," I ask "What is your
evidence," and you never present any. When it's this simple, why bother
to lie?
Pointing out your errors, falsehoods, fallacies and absurdities is
something almost anyone of average intelligence can do, with the ease
of Barry Bonds hitting home runs off a tee. But that's the problem:
it's too easy. It's fun for a while, but only a while; there's no
challenge.
So after the "Altering Sam Sloan" contest, I will probably ease off.
I do not expect that you will change your ways, but I will not be
paying any particular attention to you. Which is what I recommend to
everyone else on the group.
| |
|
| "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1117886145.712653.79750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> So after the "Altering Sam Sloan" contest, I will probably ease off.
> I do not expect that you will change your ways, but I will not be
> paying any particular attention to you. Which is what I recommend to
> everyone else on the group.
Taylor, it`s your problem that you cannot discuss without personal prejudice
towards e.g. Parr or Sloan. You are not the only one here. However you
should keep your word and ease off but I won`t follow your advice ;-)
Regards,
Jerzy
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-06-04, 8:31 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
> Taylor, it`s your problem that you cannot discuss without personal prejudice
> towards e.g. Parr or Sloan.
Jerzy, the word "prejudice" means judging in advance, i.e. a
preconceived opinion reached without weighing evidence. I can assure
you that my attitude toward Sloan has developed solely on the basis of
evidence, seen over the course of several years, most of it presented
on these newsgroups by Sloan himself.
| |
|
| Taylor Kingston wrote :
quote:
> Jerzy, the word "prejudice" means judging in advance, i.e. a
> preconceived opinion reached without weighing evidence. I can assure
> you that my attitude toward Sloan has developed solely on the basis of
> evidence, seen over the course of several years, most of it presented
> on these newsgroups by Sloan himself.
Taylor, you should ease off and look at it from a different angle. Sam Sloan
writes sometimes unverified information however it is usually a very
interesting one.
If you discuss so as to reveal the facts and not to show someone`s alleged
ignorance then such a discussion is much more interesting.
Regards,
Jerzy
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-06-04, 8:31 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
> If you discuss so as to reveal the facts and not to show someone`s alleged
> ignorance then such a discussion is much more interesting.
"Reveal the facts"? Exactly my goal, and one Sam fails to achieve
quite often.
| |
| Capablanca 2005-06-05, 12:31 am |
| "Taylor Kingston" <> "Reveal the facts"? Exactly my goal, and one Sam
fails to achieve quite often.
quote:
>
I guess not everyone is as perfect as you are. BTW, are you Jamaican?
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-06-05, 8:33 pm |
|
Capablanca wrote:
quote:
> I guess not everyone is as perfect as you are.
"Perfect," like "unique," is an absolute and so does not take
comparatives.
quote:
>BTW, are you Jamaican?
Nope, Presbyopic.
| |
| Don Pavlo 2005-06-05, 8:33 pm |
| **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"Taylor Kingston" > Nope, Presbyopic.
quote:
>
You are arrogant like a Jamaican. So full of yourself yet others just smell
your XXX-reek.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-06-05, 8:33 pm |
|
Don Pavlo wrote:
quote:
> You are arrogant like a Jamaican. So full of yourself yet others just smell
> your XXX-reek.
Thank you for your gracious and erudite response. With such as you
representing the chess community, our game will surely flourish.
| |
| Don Pavlo 2005-06-05, 8:33 pm |
| **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"Taylor Kingston" Thank you for your gracious and erudite response. With
such as you representing the chess community, our game will surely flourish.
quote:
>
I see that you have discovered my true identity. Yes it is me, Goichberg.
Vote for me as I seek to run the USCF to the next level. And BTW, I never
have liked any of your letters to Chess Life.
|
| |
|
|