<Ed Trice> I will admit it takes guts to engage in a 1 v. 25 flame war. But you should rethink your whole premise here. It's just not going to be possible to take out all the critics, one at a time. There are much better strategies to use in your quest to rehab your rep.

Recommendation: try one of those others.

====NOTE TO ALL POSTERS====

On an optimistic note, after 68 straight days (see note 2** below) and counting for this internet discussion forum, the widely recognized "Godwins's Law" has failed to materialize, despite bitter, sometimes borderline criminal acrimony.

Godwin's law states that as a discussion progresses, and grows more heated, eventually someone will mention, and even accuse, the other side, of being...well, actually, don't think I can finish the point without accusations of applying meta-influential tinkering.

*Note 1: July 4th, USA Independence from England. Not sure if naturalized Brits celebrate this with us. Every little town shoots off fireworks in the park. In Texas, you can buy ungodly assortments of downsized fireworks for private enjoyment. Some clowns always start setting these off days in advance.

**Note 2: If the Fischer pages are included, this could stretch back to Dec 13, 2007, when Ed trice wrote...

<Trice: "Dude <<[Riverbeast]>>, you like arguing so much, you may now talk to the walls. I hereby place you on IGNORE from this point forward.>

...in disgust when he (Trice) was feeling the supreme expert on the 1992 match between Spassky and Fischer, presumably because of his deep research while preparing publication of the 61st game (speculation on my part). More insults follow, particularly on Dec 19 after <Riverbeast> posts lots of info on Fischer current situation. Much of this has been deleted by administrators, I presume. The Dec 13 insult sets the stage for the explosion about to occur due to announcement of the M61MG book auction. If we take this date, then we have an amazing 554 days without the rule's invocation.

<Ed Trice:I met him at the World Open, so I was surprised he would say anything about the book involving me. He said he received an email from "me", and after further discussion just the other day, we both agree that the person who emailed him was NOT me, bit someone claiming to be me.>

This appeared on the NYTimes:

< Dr. Brady explained that he had given a lecture at the Marshall Chess Club on West 10th Street in Manhattan, and a video of the lecture was posted on YouTube. In response,> <a friend of Mr. Fischer's <<<called>>> Dr. Brady and asked him if he would help Mr. Fischer with a project: reissuing and updating his book, "My 60 Memorable Games," to be called "My 61 Memorable Games.">

<Frank Brady: This friend asked me if I would help, and I said that I don’t think that Bobby wants my help.>

Compare with this post from <Riverbeast:>

<When Trice first approached him>, <he wasn't sure....But Brady said he refused to help market the book, because he didn't think Fischer would want him to (Fischer and Brady had a falling out, mostly over Brady's own biography of Fischer).>

Trice keeps saying that someone sent Brady an e-mail pretending to be him, but in the NYTimes link, Brady said the person <called him> So it appears to have been by phone, not e-mail. Either Brady does not know the difference between an e-mail and a phone call, or Trice is lying. I'll go witth the latter.

Yes I've long agreed with <Godwin> on this.

More, following <Roland Barthes> analytic method concerning the "fetish object in popular culture" (from "Mythologies"), it is fetishistic to ensconce "Hitler" as some kind of ultimate benchmark for depravity.

This practice was lampooned, with hilarious effect, on <The Simpsons>.

Homer lights up a cigarette in the Motor Vehicle Office and the clerk spits at him

"You're worse than Hitler."

Following Barthes, the problem with such fetishization is that it mythologizes- that is, dehistoricizes-- the object of fetish- in this case <Hitler the man> as opposed to <Hitler the symbol of ultimate evil>.

I mean even the symbol is inaccurate.

I doubt very much if <Hitler> was the "most evil" person in history.

I think <Susan Polgar> is clearly more evil.

Oh my goodness it's happened <PP>!

Just as you predicted.....

I've noticed time and again how many people at CG.com have "vowed" never to talk to someone, to put them on perma-ignore-- and how many have vowed "you've seen the last of me- I'm out of here- forever" only to return, usually within 24 hours.

You even get phenomena like that <addled, almost unbelievably narcissistic bore> Lamont repeatedly saying "good bye" to all on the <Fischer page> only to immediately return.

As you pointed out, he even died of cancer and returned.

By the way, I agree with your initial post on that topic.

Telling people at CG.com that you've died of cancer as "a joke" is simply disgusting behaviour.

It's the behaviour of an ill-mannered child, or a sociopath.

Or, in more colloquial terms, an "Asshat."

I was going to ask you for some "technical information" regarding this thread here.

Now I know for a fact that it's possible to <save> all of this thread in cyberspace, because when <Ed Labate> sends me emails, they even have the Cg.com avatars and such- so it's possible to copy and save this thread in the exact forum it's currently in.

I don't know how to do this though.

Point being is that as of August 4th I'm going to be home on vacation and I'm going to restart this forum in its orginal purpose, to honor <AA Alekhine>.

So in advance, you guys should probably figure out how and where to archive this thread.

I won't delete anything until you guys give me the go ahead.

But please you guys start thinking about this now.

There's plenty of time to figure out where to put all of these historical posts.

<Well, not really my life... but my life insurance. I did a silly thing and bought a policy from a company that someone on the radio "suggested". They said they were an endorsed local provider or some such thing. Well the policy was cheap. The thing is as I looked at my 10 year level term policy on year 11 my rates tripled! I couldn't afford to renew the policy!>

<Rob sat down and worked with me as a consultant and didn't treat the product as a commodity. We designed a plan that met my families needs. We have some permanent insurance as well as term insurance. Both of them are just slightly more than I am paying for the term at the other company and cheaper than the premium in year 11 if I had kept the policy from the "endorsed local provider".>

<Let Rob be your agent. You won't regret it.>

<January 21, 2009 by Danny Demastus in Murfreesboro, TN>

B-25 Mitchell Bomber (Named after Billy)

Rob's last name.

It's a WWII "The Big One" joke.

I just watched episode 5 of BATTLEFIELD 360- THE BIG E last night which is a fabulously good documentary about the <Enterprise> and its crew during the Pacific War.

Highly recommended!

This place is the end of the earth.

He that has lost his credit is dead to the world.

<Ed Trice> must feel like the man who was tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. To the man who asked how he liked it he said: 'If it wasn't for the honour of the thing, I'd rather walk.'-

<Ed Trice: Riverbeast, guess who is next?

(hint, it's you who spoofed all those emails, we already know it, buh bye!)>

On June 19, <JonDSouzaEva> effectively demolished this red herring before the red paint had even stopped sagging on the fish.

However, let's think for a minute what it takes to do something like what <ET> is suggesting. I think he will agree with many of my points here:

1. An effective writing imitation is very hard to pull off. (If indeed <Riverbeast> had spoofed the emails, he could be hailed as a genious for his ability to imitate <Ed Trice>'s style) 2. This is particularly true when the writer being faked is a multi-faceted, variously motivated, uneven tempered, disturbed individual. The faked person's true character must be revealed in the writing, not just the "forger's" stereotyped view of him. (IMO <Riverbeast> is prone to stereotyping, and would have a lot to overcome.) 3. Really the only way to do that--reveal the faked person's true character--is to study not only his writing style, but his life, his philosophy, successes and failures, his motivations, to the point of actual empathy.

4. If what I have described above is true, then we have a curious situation here: I hardly think <Riverbeast> would spend one minute getting to know <ET> real motivations or try to empathize. (He would make up fake motivations.) --*BUT*-- what I have described could VERY EASILY apply to the forging (if that did occur) of M61MG, in that <Ed Trice> has shown in his posts, and other writing, a deep understanding of Fischer's messed-up persona, his life, his writings, and (however wrong) his motivations.

6. Given that starting point, all things considered, I would have to score the possibilities of <RB> forging <ET> and <ET> forging <RF> as follows:

----EVENT------SCORE

1. <ET> forges <BF> 38.2/100

2. <RB> forges <ET> .0036/100

Accusation of forgery being a very serious matter, but if true even more serious fpr the forger, note the reactions to the accusations for 1. and 2. above:

for <ET> forges <BF> we have the case of <Rob Mitchell> who explained how he thought the process in No. 1 could have been accomplished. Reaction of the Accused: one of the most rapid, viscious, monofocused attacks we have seen in these pages.

For <RB> forges <ET>: Not sure about this, but I thought I heard <Riverbeast> laughing and knocking his temple with the palm of his hand.