"help bot" <nomorechess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:145ba7b3-6bbb-4ff0-82b9-0a4042af024a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 30, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> >> > Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
>> >> > and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
>> >> > someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
>> >> > Parr has been assigned with promulgating.
>>
>> >> Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent
voices.
>> >> The
>> >> inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.
>>
>> > Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that
>> > Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while
>> > he may well be independent of the folks who run
>> > the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly
>> > independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen
>> > were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with
>> > apparently zero critical examination on LE's part.
>>
>> This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for
>> people who already know some things so that he records his own comments
>> along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue?
>
>
> No. Mr. Evans rarely "substantiates". In fact, the
> main reason people are aware that he is merely
> *parroting* is that there is nothing added, nothing
> considered, nothing but a parrot and his cracker.
These are no doubt phrases understood where you are. But my question to
you
is what you want? Not what some people want. Maybe you get to it in this
message?
> We noticed this at least as early as 1974-5, back
> when a certain Chess Lies article was swallowed
> whole, ants and all. The poor fellow did not even
> bother with thinking about a ludicrous claim; he
> seemed almost /eager/ to be a parrot.
I pass on something so vague and anodyne I don't know what it is. If the
current writer intends to engage another, rather than, er, 'parrot'
opinions, he might mention what it is...
> An article by Taylor Kingston happened upon
> one instance of this *uncritical* parroting of what
> Mr. Evans thinks may "fit" into his biased fantasy
> world. But no doubt it would be easier to locate
> the stuff by EW, who stumbles upon such things
> whilst correcting misspellings, as all good pedants
> must, by their very nature.
Still no chessic subject matter... for how long will I engage such a
conversation? For sure, we already see attitude, what about what?
>> Being 'independent' is
>> no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers
>
>
> My point had nothing to do with the *virtues* of
> independent thinking; I merely observed the fact
> that a parrot is certainly not truly independent. If
> Mr. Evans carefully considered before he parroted,
> that would be acceptable, though even here, "his"
> ideas are not emerging independently of others
> inside his small circle of alike-thinkers.
Just to break into this abstract criticism a moment, has the topic yet
been
declared? Or is abstract critical material intellectually sufficient to
those who I must not need any?
> This
> think-alike business is what allows wrong-headed
> thinking to go unchecked.
Did I say that it is not think-alike, as in go along with, but
independently
verify, from own experience?
> It reminds me of the
> dregs who surrounded Bobby Fischer, while he
> was ranting and raving about Jews and Russian
> cheaters and how he was a, if not the, chess god.
Does it indeed? What reminds you of it? I made an entirely differnent
point,
but which still 'reminds you' - and I wonder if what you respond to has
any
external reference at all? Sorry to be so shrink-ish, but any ful would
say
same, after yoru response.
>> It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack'
>> Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to
him,
>> while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on
what
>> it
>> was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of
other
>> personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU.
>
>
> Systemic corruption of the SU, you say?
Yes, systemic corruption is what I say and what they say. I suffer from
receiving some 2,000 exchanges with Russian chess players and organisers
in
order to ask you to suffer this opinion.
> I keep
> reading about such things, and nowadays the
> focus has turned to /China/. What I find interesting
> is the "familiar" feel these stories... the way they
> remind me of home.
I am afraid that such internal referencing is your business alone, and
none
of mind. It matters not to me that you see your own country the same, but
that you aver that such things are at all odd in the world, and should so
continuously shock you.
> Yeah, that's right my boy,
> right here in the good old U.S. of A. I am often
> reminded of a certain FBI chief, who told all his
> fellow Americans that there was "no such thing
> as organized crime"-- things like that. Not that
> anyone needs to travel so far back in time, oh no!
> I just happen to like that example.
So, is this some equation of false Russians with false Americans?
I would say that this is a rather extraordianry means to come about the
subject that Korchnoi represented, that corruption in the West in chess
was
for money. But I do not assume I understand Kennedy's comment here, except
it is so gerneral as to equate any form of government [corruption] with
any
other.
> Please take off that holier-than-thou cape-- it's
> not even your color!
The meaning of this sentence is obscure. No doubt the questioner would
like
to be asked what he means, though, given what goes before, I don't need to
ask.
>
>> Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is
>> guilty
>> of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any
>> propaganda whether it was issued from East or West
>
>
> Wrong.
And when people make such declarations they might as well be Ken Sloan
defending ratings at USCF, this person who can attest that politically
rigging of ratings [eg. Tanner's] is 'Not' or some monosyllablic
rejoinder,
despite all evidence.
I leave the rest of this message and its analogies to another day, maybe.
But note the abandonement of even the seemingness of detailed content
discussion by someone absolutely intent on rubbi****ng other people for
what
he cannot do himself.
Phil Innes
>
>> My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit,
>> who
>> <emphasis> accepted that apology.
>
>
> It is not enough. The entire chess world was
> humiliated by this. Cheating is bad for chess,
> just as it is bad for baseball, for instance. It is
> also bad for chess when faves are allowed to
> cheat, and afterward protected by apologists
> who spin the facts.
>
> If there is one thing you take away from this
> post, let it be this: a writer who throws his
> integrity out the window in favor of personal
> bias, is just a hack. You can't allow these
> agendas to take over and run your whole life!
>
> So, when a camera re****ts that the pitches are
> moving at 96 mph, if you hear the commentator
> ranting that there is something "wrong" with the
> camera because Nolan Ryan is really a 110 mph
> pitcher, you can safely assume he is a nutter.
> Especially when the same camera re****ts the
> same numbers for several other pitchers, in the
> same game, and the hack commentator says
> it is working correctly /for them/.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
|
