Delusional #1 - but yes, I agree, there is no one else on <CG> who wants to discuss the physics of Godzilla seriously.>

Still smarting over that?

Of course Godzilla is fiction, but radioactivity and nuclear energy are real.

These subjects are within the domain of physics and lend themselves to serious discussion.

You can even take courses on these topics, at a university, to expand your understanding.

Delusion #2 - You think I follow you around from forum to forum?!>

You misrepresent what I said.

I did not say you follow me around. I said you go to the forums that I read, to post your stuff.

Mystery: solved.>

Do you really think my point was that this is a mystery?

I've seen a lot of misinterpretations of my posts, but few this large.

<This issue has nothing to do with <Jim>, or anything <Daniel> did.>

We wouldn't be talking about it if <Jim> wasn't harping on it! So yeah, it kinda does have A LOT to do with <Jim> posting about it.

<If any of you wants to beef up stubby bios of worthy candidates, if this website ever starts functioning again, get off your ass and volunteer to become an editor.>

Off topic. Another red herring, actually. This isn't about beefing up stubby bios! You are going off-topic why, exactly? So you can preach to me from a soapbox?

<Then get off your ass and do some of the work yourselves, instead of complaining.>

1. I wasn't complaining, I was trying to get people to think about what, exactly, <Jim> was doing. The fact that he didn't disagree with my suggestion is FAR MORE evidence of good motive than you hollering at me.

<Also educate yourself about the why the current state of bios is the way it is,>

Again, not the topic.

<before indulging in idiotic conspiracy theories about <Jim's> "ulterior motives.">

Another erroneous characterization. It's no secret that Jim was banned from So's page. That's about as much of a "conspiracy" as saying the sky is blue.

<Less idle gossip, more work- from *you*. >

I made one post about bios last week. Then other people disagreed with my opinion and I responded.

<Another erroneous characterization. It's no secret that Jim was banned from So's page. That's about as much of a "conspiracy" as saying the sky is blue.>

I'll stand by every word I wrote. The only issue at hand, it seems, is the attempt to impugn <Jim's> correct stance on the <So> biography. This attempt is a non-starter.

<Jim> and <Ohio> were the only two to mount any kind of serious public opposition to <So's> successful attempt to turn his bio into a press release.

This is the only issue that matters to me, and it's the only issue that matters to anyone who actually cares about doing academically sound research at chessgames.com

Many of you (<The Good Anteater> I wasn't attempting to single you out- I saw <diceman's> post and didn't even realize he had reposted you in particular) have indeed been harping on this phantom "ulterior" motive from <Jim>, which is an irresponsible fantasy driven 100% by personal animus towards <Jim>, a fantasy that has obscured the actual issues. I addressed the only issue that matters to me, or to any other actual historian.

<Bureaucrat> 100% agrees with <Jim>.

<OhioChessFan> 100% agrees with <Jim>.

I also agree 100% agree with <Jim>.

Please leave the historical work to actual historians, and limit your personal animus towards other members to the <Rogoff> page.

I'll just finish by reminding all that this website currently has no webmaster.

Who knows the exact state of affairs currently operative on the <So> page?

I think the editors should wait until an actual webmaster emerges, if that ever happens. Nobody knows what that will look like, or what kind of character that webmaster might have.

Under these conditions, I think it pointless to start any new operations on the <So> page. Who knows what <Gm So> might say or do if one of us attempts to recover his *actual* biography, rescuing it from its current status as a press release.

I also agree 100% agree with <Jim>.>

I don't often agree with <Jim>, but in regard to the <So> page, I am 100% in agreement, and I have said this before also.

Who gives a flying dam what Wesley would say or do? He doesn't run this site.

<I doubt it is even safe for an editor to make any changes there under the current condition of uncertainty.>

ROFLMAO!!!

Didn't you just say: <Please leave the historical work to actual historians>

Then why don't the historians and editors get off their butts and repair the bio?

I already broke a chain-letter, and look what happened to me!

Paul Keres

I have brought Keres bio to the attention of the editors both here and at the Bistro, before Daniel's demise, with little response and no effect.

The first ulterior motive is that anti-Wesley posters are still burned after being banished, thus they are exploiting the late Webmaster's death attempting to sneak back in. The second ulterior motive is how repeat offenders are used to being rewarded with special treatment based on false narratives and revisionist history; under President Obama, they could go looting and rioting all they wanted, then someone else would clean up their mess. The third ulterior motive is the issue of control: they are insanely jealous that they cannot control his biography, meaning the content will never be satisfactory in their eyes. The fourth ulterior motive is they are desperate to be relevant, so involving themselves in his personal business (Webster, parents, Susan Polgar) gives them something to do. The fifth ulterior motive is Wesley So is a straight man and White Hispanic, yet social justice warriors hate straight men and White Hispanics. Once again, the significance of the Wesley So player page biography is being blown way out of proportion to reality as certain people cannot make it through their day without controversy.

This is not true, according to what DF wrote me in two emails. The Wesley So bio is written the same way all bios are written.

And if this were true, it should be clearly stated that the bio is not written according to historical standards, but is controlled by "Team Wesley."

In April 2017 the administrator wrote the following:

Apr-14-17
<Premium Chessgames Member chessgames.com: <saffuna> <Are the player bios intended to be historical and accurate, or are they simply what the player wants written about himself?>

They are certainly intended to be accurate. While I fully confess a bias toward positive achievements there should be absolutely nothing false or anything contentious or unsubstantiated.

<Do players have right of approval over the bios on their player pages?>

No, absolutely not. >

"No, absolutely not."