The judges liked its aptness, its inclusion of chess and fencing, and its subtle proof that the sword is mightier than the pen (is).

<Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.>

So JOKING or SERIOUS or plain BANANAS, there's no violation of US law that I can see.

<Me I romp and stomp/ thankful as I romp/ without freedom of speech/ I might be in the swamp> as the author of John Wesley Hardin said. So? So what?

Also, only narks and informers and grasses turn folks in to the authorities, and history - even the history written by those same authorities - takes a dim view of them.

As sugar has a link with cavities ... and Cavite ... it's unclear whether this is a mental or dental health problem.

This is a chain reaction. A cascade, to use a different set of metaphors.

Personally, I don't much care what happens on the Wesley So page, or any other player page. I don't even look at my own very often. My interest in the 'fan' side of chess is minimal.

But I've been following this one, because I'm interested in what might be called psycho-nationalism. Where a group gets an almost paranoid sense of its own significance.

From my perspective, this is what happened: <tpstar> listed some types of posts, with quotes, one of which happened to be an old line of Richard's. Richard has explained himself pretty well elsewhere.

<SugarDom> reacted wildly. First, by spamming all over the site, here included. Second, by the weird twist of logic that jumped from the RT quote to the insane notion that "we" (who, exactly? So fans? The So-fan cyber-barangay? All Filipinos?) were being deeply insulted with the unspeakable allegation that they supported 9/11.

Which is patent nonsense.

I, for example, would never have thought such a thing.

It was sneaky of <tpstar> to deploy a totally unrelated quote, I agree with that much. And, in any case, it wasn't really an example of 'conspiracy theory' - it was more like what I think Annie K called 'blunted emotion'. But no rational person would read into it what <SugarD> did.

<It was sneaky of <tpstar> to deploy a totally unrelated quote, I agree with that much. And, in any case, it wasn't really an example of 'conspiracy theory' - it was more like what I think Annie K called 'blunted emotion'. But no rational person would read into it what <SugarD> did.>

Ah, yes. Hello. No, I didn't say that, actually.

But while I'm here, and feeling uncharacteristically communicative this week, I might as well comment. :)

Actually, I disagree that no rational person would read into it what <SD> did, because it only takes a little self-centeredness to think things are aimed at oneself, which is perfectly normal. On the other hand, it is also perfectly normal for people not to constantly take everybody else's self-centeredness into account, which is why <tpstar> can't really be held responsible for not anticipating <SD>'s reaction either.

I reckon most times people <don't> misunderstand each other, are (astonishingly common, considering) accidents. :p

I also disagree with the rest of the paragraph, incidentally, but I can see that it is based on Dom not having done his/your homework.

<tpstar> wasn't being sneaky, he was doing exactly what he said he was doing - listing examples of cult syndrome symptoms. Dom, your comment "it wasn't really an example of 'conspiracy theory'" tells me that you haven't really followed up what was being said in Taylor's original post, as it was in fact exactly a conspiracy theory. I will quote here the whole paragraph in question, with attention to the relevant sentences.

(Wait, "sentences"? No, that's not right... ah, heck, whatever - I mean, "what passes for sentences in Taylor's universe".) Anyway...

<RT: <<well ...yes ... hhmmm... I can understand the sentiment..but maybe said at the wrong time and a bit stongly - but a courageous thing to say - <the trouble is - I suspect S/11 was organised by the US to energise their War Of Terror> - their wonderful "En doo ring Freeee domb" (by bomb) - but of course whoever "did the Towers" (and no one knows who did - who do you believe? - there was never proper investigation) put on <a spectacular display - I enjoyed watching it on the day> - the history of US oprresion and invasions etc is so bad since 1945 that one feels sympathy with those who express such things - but of course one has to be a "diplomat" (up to a point) and, while most/or much of the world THOUGHT what Fischer SAID - most stayed silent in fear they would get hammered first!! ( by napalm for Xmas etc)<<<<>>>>>>>

You are excused on the grounds of Taylor's posts being notoriously difficult to read. ;p But as you can see (or should, IMO anyway) <tpstar>'s inclusion of this quote was both justifiable, and aptly described.