A pleasure to see how its done from all you above me on the points ladder.

Appreciative nods to the one or two people who did worse than me.

Special congratulations (and thanks for the lessons) to the congregation of medal winners.

And hearty thanks to the hosts, who apparently do this for absolutely pure and unselfish motives.

<Ohio>

I do understand you are reluctant to converse by email, but I do have a rare <non silly> topic I would really like to discuss with you in private. I have a cg.com-related idea I want to run by you "for your ears only."

If you agree, there is a simple way to protect your privacy-

Make a new, or "throwaway" email account.

Use that account to email me a "hello" at

jessicafischerqueen@yahoo.com

Then I just hit reply and we can have a secure one to one private conversation.

Anything you said to me would be ultra top secret private, never to be repeated or even alluded to elsewhere.

Again, the topic is not personal-it's strictly an idea about <cg.com> protocols and procedures, and I am seeking your opinion- and I want to ask you if you are willing to help me do something in particular.

Best regards,

User: what

User: sss

User: hap

User: ppp

User: eee

User: ning

Hello <Bert>!

I did ask you not to do this, but I can't bring myself to destroy anything written by you- so I put it here:

<OhioChessFan: Here's the deal. This project is not like the normal bio writing done. A year from now, if someone sees a problem in a bio, they can appeal to any editor and get it fixed. I did that this week with a small point in the So bio and it was fixed that day. It's been made clear with the WCC intros, there is one shot and one shot only to get it right. I don't agree that it hasn't worked. I've seen a lot of praise by the parties involved. I've seen no objections to it until the recent post <Annie> made. The fact is, Annie was <right> And <Karpova> totally blew off all the legitimate (fact based, not stylistic) issues <Annie> raised. Any person who could produce a sentence like this:

<Lasker called the win in game 5 fortunate and that Schlechter had really wanted to add a second win.>

frankly has no business telling other people they don't have the right to correct them.

So, that's what I think.>

<Ohio> Thank you for replying- I felt a bit guilty, and I'm glad to see that this appears to be a mistake on my part. I thought I had made it clear, but I just reviewed our correspondence and you are correct.

I do respect you and your opinions, on this and all other matters, even when I don't agree with them.

This is because I respect you.

I can start with reinstating some history that was lost to a fit of overzealous revisionism:

http://tinyurl.com/kgn3zx2

(url shortened from Google Cache - should that cache be cleared sometime, I have a copy on hard drive too, of course.)

Whether the prior editing arrangement was a problem for the intro writers or not isn't important to me. The writers should work in the environment which is most productive for them. If that means working without editors, fine. I'm sure they will find most errors on their own. The finished product will be good enough for the purpose.

Perhaps the matter boils down to whether the Soviet is 1. part of the editing team, or 2. support for the primary writers, to be used (or not) when desired. And which it should be.