The part I don't get is nominating yourself. Why do people do that do themselves- expose their vanity to others?

Do they not understand it puts them in a bad light? How difficult is it to understand?

User: sonic

User: ironic

<http://www.chess.co.uk/kingpin/King...>

I'm assuming they agree heartedly about the book, though I'd be surprised if they ever hobnobbed.

I love <Tony Miles> and have read a good deal about him. Have you read "The Cat Who Walked by Himself" about Tony Miles?

It's a superb historical reminiscence by Gena Sosonko and I recommend it highly.

Also the title is an allusion to a (very fine) Kipling story, so you Poms might get a kick out of that too.

I haven't read the Keene book, although I have to confess that I've read at least two of his books, his appraisal of <Nimzo> and his account of organizing the <Kasparov-Short> match, that I found fascinating.

I suppose I should read him with a grain of salt but I should read everything that way if you think about it.

Also I confess that I love Ray as a TV host. He was great on those shows and they are all on youtube now eh?

Your peace-making post is the only shard left.

I must be thick, it took me this long to figure out that <mag> was almost certainly <tolen> himself, and that he doesn't care much about the awards at all except for another opportunity to present that so very odd "legal theatre" for the benefit of Daniel and mainly just to have fun taking the piss.

I feel foolish having fallen for that, "don't feed the bears" as <Annie> says, and has said a few times quite recently.

Yes, the phenomenon is so spectacularly strange and wonderful that it seems right to approach it with a sense of ethics.

Is it "I said to Monkey"?

I don't get it. I don't get how these people appear not to understand that others view a "self-nominater" to be a conceited jerk.

How did these people not learn this lesson earlier in their lives?

Even sociopaths understand that it's necessary to conform to a few social norms in order to conceal rampant vanity. A reasonably intelligent sociopath would understand that self-nomination would greatly reduce the chance of getting nominated <and> actually winning. A smarter strategy would be simply to wait for someone else to nominate you. Nominating yourself guarantees (and it does guarantee this) that you won't win the award you covet.

<Tomlinsky> long time no see!

HNY....

"He No You"
"Hello New Yoooooorrrrk!"
"Hens needs Yeggs"

Why does everyone else know these.

<Tomlinsky> nope it's not attractive in the least. It's a particularly obnoxious form of bragging. Also, if you preface it with some kind of disclaimer, as both <frog> and <abel> did, that actually makes it worse.

If you have enough self-knowledge to realize that a disclaimer is necessary, then you're saying something like:

"I realize I'm a vain braggart, but I figure if I put some kind of semi-humorous excuse in as a preface, it will be ok and maybe I'll win the award I so desperately covet..."

This "quasi-apologetic preface" is very akin to the habit of non-democratic regimes to feel the need to put "democratic" right in the title of their country.

If the country has to advertise they are democratic, it's really unlikely they actually are:

North Korea <Democratic People's Republic of Korea>

Ahh, they must be democratic so they're ok with me.

China < People's Republic of China>

Ahh, people can vote in a republic, so they're ok with me.

Just to be clear- there's no shame in feeling the emotion of vanity. It would be foolish to pretend to ourselves we aren't vain. Everybody feels this, to varying degrees, at some time or another.

There very much is shame, however, in giving in to this emotion by acting vainly.

I'm gonna check out Sosonko's book on Miles .. Well I'm gonna order it lol

RE RK jeez .. anyway ! lol

As for 'awards' .. well it can bring out the worst in folk .. and TBH there is a tendency towards cliqueyness which can be so ugly ..Partizaness or just straight forward ignorance..