Re: Paul Truong Has Filed For Bankruptcy -- Response for Mr. Kane
- From: "David Kane" <davidekane@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:16:46 -0700
"J.D. Walker" <j.d.walker@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:lsadncCIj-UNCRLVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Brian Lafferty wrote:David Kane wrote:
"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:bpdu84ltcchokit697u6vsj2od5krtbt32@xxxxxxxxxx
You forgot. He's a chessplayer. The chess world prides itself
on having no standards and does not require a person to
maintain a reputation. It won't be long before Parr, Innes, Mitchell,
Walker and the rest are posting their creative defenses.
This charge you have made about me is no doubt an example of the quality of /your/ standards. I do not defend Mr. Truong. I do not defend Ms. Polgar. Recently, the documents that have been discovered are quite damning. I have been tempted to join the frenzy of condemnation. I have restrained myself to offering the suggestion that Ms. Polgar;'s friends need to supply good advice at this time. The force of events is going to move on despite the temptations of the lynch mob mentality that some find irresistible. It looks very, very bad for Mr. Truong. Is that defense Mr. Kane?
First, I missed that you had posted prior to my post. I apologize for that
and do not consider what you posted a defense of Truong in any way.
Sorry.
Second, while neither your previous post nor this one are defenses
of Truong, I do not (yet) retract my prediction.
[BTW, Innes has behaved as predicted, and Mitchell, though denying
that he's offering a defense is on the counterattack - not
much difference. Parr is usually cautious, so it would not be surprising
for him to take longer to figure out how to spin it - especially when
there is no GM Evans position that he can copy verbatim.]
Is calm discussion possible?
You were the one making light of Fischer's advocacy of genocide
because he was "disturbed", mocking the very idea that
chessplayers had the right to comment on the public behavior
of those in its group. You were the one refusing (on extremely
flimsy and illogical grounds) to comment on the Truong's
obscenity-laden impersonations, despite
the fact that the smoking gun has been in front of us all for months.
Personally, I don't care how "calm" you are. I'm more impressed
with thoughtfulness and honesty.
And, Mr. Kane, you never did explain the substance behind your standards other than to explain away questions by calling them /main stream./
I pointed out numerous times that it was an irrelevancy. You still
have never addressed the substantive issue - what do do in the
face of obvious wrongdoing.
Should I judge your standards in light of your leveling charges at the innocent?
--
What charges have I leveled? At worst I've overgeneralized from
your behavior in other instances and made a bad prediction.
If you start "doing that which is right", I'd be happy to
correct any errors I've made. I'll even take a little credit.
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Paul Truong Has Filed For Bankruptcy
- From: David Kane
- Re: Paul Truong Has Filed For Bankruptcy
- From: Brian Lafferty
- Re: Paul Truong Has Filed For Bankruptcy -- Response for Mr. Kane
- From: J.D. Walker
- Re: Paul Truong Has Filed For Bankruptcy
- Prev by Date: Schadenfreude, but in moderation
- Next by Date: Re: Schadenfreude, but in moderation
- Previous by thread: Re: Schadenfreude, but in moderation
- Next by thread: Re: Paul Truong Has Filed For Bankruptcy -- Response for Mr. Kane
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
