Jonathan Bryant wrote:
John McKenna wrote:
Does what follows sound like a joke?
Ah Wiki. Well let's say for the sake of argument this is all true. If somebody steals a bunch of money (from poor people) then spends it on places of religious worship is that a joke?
Anyhoo, my eyebrow was raised not by this as much as by your assertion that religious faith (of whatever flavour) some how gets you points on a Are You Redeemably Hot or Not score chart.
John McKenna wrote:
... perhaps Phil will emerge as the great peacemaker?
For what it's worth, I've spent time with Phil and I greatly enjoyed his company. The closest I've come to personal contact with AP is standing behind him at the queue for the cloakroom at the Classic where I observed him interact with the member of staff with genuine warmth - as if she were a real person and not some venue employed drone put there to do his bidding. And that's more than you can say for a lot of people at chess events. For that matter I've yet to meet (face to face or online) a member of council who didn't seem to be some variety of good egg.
I'm very far from convinced that the problems with the ECF are related to the failings of individuals. It's more what happens when those individuals come together and act collectively. An analogy I've drawn in the past is with English cricket and Allen Stanford
. The problem there not being what Stanford did but that the English Cricket Board let him do it.
Jonathan, thanks for your reply. It's all a bit of joke to me.
Your description of stealing money from the poor and spending it on places of religious worship can, of course, be applied to any religious institution with a collection plate to some degree. Although you might want to add "under false pretences" to stealing to be fair.
I don't actually see that I made the assertion about "religious faith (of whatever flavour) some how (sic.) gets you points..." you claim I did, however, that is not a belief I subscribe to (I am agnostic) but rather one that religious believers do.
I think your bit about you being "far from convinced that the problems of the of the ECF are related to the failings of individuals..." is a poor excuse - just as it is in your example of when Stanford got involved in English cricket. If alarm bells don't ring in the minds of individual officials when strangers appear with "loads of money" then they are wilfully, mentally deaf and their vision is impaired, too, by thought of all the cash. Collective responsibility should not diminish their failure, on the contrary, it should add to it. The existence and actions of Stanford were definitely a big part of the problem - if 'the Devil' did not exist there would be no temptation. And, if you can't stand the heat stay out of hell's kitchen, i.e. don't remain in office but do the honourable thing and resign.
Reassuring, though, to hear that Andrew is approachable - even if, sometimes, only in a queue. If I'd know that I'd have thanked him for helping bring the Candidates to London when he passed by in the cafe at the event. Also very reassuring to know that Phil really exists, moving in certain circles, and is not just a figment of collective imagination (myth).
So here we have it - 'Contractgate' - with Chris Rice and Streatham & Brixton Blog as Woodward & Bernstein, Nick Faulks as Deepthroat and Nigel Short a Nigel Farage character, or not as the case may be.
Anyway, I'm just the man on the Clapham bus and as I said, "I give up."
I'll just sit back now and watch the drama roll on. Maybe it will all end in tears for Kirsan as it did for Richard Milhous.
Oh, and, Chris Rice had better be careful out there - a Media Free Zone in the UAE can easily become more of a media-free one with a selective cull of journos.
Edit: What boots it to repeat...
Jonathan Bryant>Anyhoo, my eyebrow was raised not by this as much as by your assertion that religious faith (of whatever flavour) some how gets you points on a Are You Redeemably Hot or Not score chart.<
Ah, but now I have it -
John McKenna>I care about Kirsan, he can't be totally beyond redemption as a person, he's Buddhist for *****'s sake and seems to care about the game of chess if not all those who play it...<
Despite how it may appear from what is written above there is a world of difference between a person being "not beyond redemption" in a secular sense and a religious one. Although I've mentioned, more than once, that Kirsan is a Buddhist (among other things) surely what followed gave a hint that I did not believe his name was to be entered on an " Are You Redeemably Hot or Not score chart" (your words, Jonathan not mine). Specifically - "(Kirsan) seems to care about the game of chess if not all those who play it". If I was trying to promote a religious merit-points agenda I would not have made a joke out of being a Buddhist (for *****'s sake), and not caring about all chessplayers, since a Buddhist is supposed to care about all sentient beings.
I'm afraid you may have mistaken me for a person of a religious bent, Jonathan.
Whereas I tend to agree with those (like ***** *********, perhaps) who believe in vino veritas
How Long , how long, in infinite Pursuit
Of This and That endeavour and dispute?
Better be merry with the fruitful Grape
Than sadden after none, or bitter, Fruit
That could be said to be part of my philosophy, but I'd not turn it into a religion.
Adieu?!? (Don't worry - that's just me being agnostic.)
Not quite -
Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Does what follows sound like a joke? It could be one.
Ilyumzhinov has spent millions of dollars on chess and supporting religion, building a Catholic church at the instigation of the Pope John Paul II. He has also built a mosque, a synagogue, 22 Orthodox churches, and 30 Buddhist temples... The 14th Dalai Lama has visited Kirsan Ilyumzhinov on many occasions and has blessed a number of the temples in Elista, as well as Kalmyk Buddhist temples overseas. (Wikipedia)
Why would anyone think this might be a joke? I can't personally confirm the exact numbers, but would expect all of the above information to be factually correct. Which part is in doubt?
Nick, I appreciate that you are fighting what amounts to an almost lone rearguard action here to try to save some of FIDE's bacon but please get it right - above is Jonathan B QUOTING ME. What HE WROTE underneath was -
"Ah Wiki. Well let's say for the sake of argument this is all true. If somebody steals a bunch of money (from poor people) then spends it on places of religious worship is that a joke?"
When I wrote what I wrote it was to see if Jonathan B would say something tantamount to - the Wiki entry is not true. Of course, he might have been angling for a personal invite from Kirsan to visit Kalmykia and see the wonders for himself. But no, he passed that up with his honest answer.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)