Page 2 of 3

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:39 pm
by John McKenna
Yes, Justin, but are we not quite familiar with them grifters, drifters, unloveable and loveable rogues, et al, dotted about among the assorted ranks of chessplayers?

They may always be with us, but they are individuals, or small groups, who come and go.

And, though I will not try to condone the way things were done at times, I'd just like to add that Tony (& co.) have done a lot more good than all the legal firearms, narcotics, gambling & liquor giants and a whole host of other conglomerate merchants.

Let's try to keep things in perspective out there and in here.

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:41 pm
by JustinHorton
John McKenna wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:39 pm
Yes, Justin, but are we not quite familiar with them grifters, drifters, unloveable and loveable rogues, et al, dotted about among the assorted ranks of chessplayers?
So we are, and there's a reason there's so many of them and they get to hang around so long

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:58 pm
by John McKenna
That's true enough, Justin.

I'd be quite willing to discuss that reason, and there may
well be an overwhelming primary one, but I'd prefer not to do it here, please.

May peace and tranquility abound in your sleepy hollow.

John

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:31 pm
by JustinHorton
That seems fair enough in principle John, albeit if you really do wish to use terms like "lovable rogue" it may not be wholly reasonable to expect to go uncontradicted.

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:42 pm
by John McKenna
Justin, I accept what you say immediately above, but I'd prefer look at it like this - almost everything is open to question and in a great many cases interpretation. (But, I do live in hope that certain almost-certain certainties can be agreed upon by reasonable people.)

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:15 am
by R G Edwards
Poor old Tony. He's only been dead a few days and people on here are already bad-mouthing him. What's his great crime, exactly? Writing books? Frankly, it's shameful that anyone would post such mean-spirited comments in an obituary section.

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:50 am
by JustinHorton
R G Edwards wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:15 am
What's his great crime, exactly? Writing books?
If you don't know why he was a controversial figure (and should have been more so) and haven't worked it out from reading the comments above, I can offer a wide variety of reading on the subject.

It's as well to be measured in our comments on the departed, but maybe there's a quid pro quo here, that people don't expect that to be a way of avoiding the discussion of difficult truths. And you know - perhaps if English chess were less given to doing that where the living are concerned, there might be less controversy after these people are gone. And less humbug.

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:25 am
by David Sedgwick
JustinHorton wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:50 am
It's as well to be measured in our comments on the departed ...
Which in my opinion you have been.

Nevertheless, as I indicated in my earlier post, positive comments about Tony Buzan probably belong elsewhere.

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:31 am
by R G Edwards
The convention for obituaries is that the strongest criticism one makes is along the lines of "there is no doubt that Tony was a divisive figure, and could be given to hyperbole. His claim to have been consultant in the 1986..."

What you don't do is start posting links to spats you had with the deceased, or listing out his shortcomings. It's poor form.

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:00 pm
by JustinHorton
In fact it is not unknown for obituaries to be critical of their subjects, but although one of the comments above links to an obituary, none of them actually constitute one on their own. This is a thread, not an obituary nor a set of them. It discusses an individual whose life and methods engendered controversy, and that has certain consequences which you are welcome to avoid if that is your preference, but not, perhaps, to insist on from everybody else.
R G Edwards wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:31 am
What you don't do is start posting links to spats you had with the deceased, or listing out his shortcomings.
You asked, earlier:
R G Edwards wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:15 am
What's his great crime, exactly?
If you actually meant "but please do not tell me, because I do not want to know", then it would have been helpful to append that information.

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:04 pm
by Matt Mackenzie
I look forward to the goings on in here when RDK finally goes to the great wheeler dealer in the sky.

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:21 pm
by R G Edwards
JustinHorton wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:00 pm
In fact it is not unknown for obituaries to be critical of their subjects, but although one of the comments above links to an obituary, none of them actually constitute one on their own. This is a thread, not an obituary nor a set of them. It discusses an individual whose life and methods engendered controversy, and that has certain consequences which you are welcome to avoid if that is your preference, but not, perhaps, to insist on from everybody else.
R G Edwards wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:31 am
What you don't do is start posting links to spats you had with the deceased, or listing out his shortcomings.
You asked, earlier:
R G Edwards wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:15 am
What's his great crime, exactly?
If you actually meant "but please do not tell me, because I do not want to know", then it would have been helpful to append that information.
But they're not crimes, though, are they? Tony Buzan hasn't been found guilty of dishonesty or impropriety, either legally or by a professional body. You're simply repeating allegations, previously made by you. And you're using a section entitled "obituaries" to repeat them. They have no place here.

That's all I have to say on this subject; I'm sure you will want to have the last word.

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:02 pm
by JustinHorton
Yeah, why not. If you overlook the faults of your friends while they're alive, you're liable to be offended when you hear them discussed after they're gone. Well, perhaps what is at fault here is the habit of overlooking.

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:26 pm
by Roger Lancaster
The Latin phrases De mortuis nihil nisi bonum and De mortuis nil nisi bene [dicendum] ("Of the dead, [say] nothing but good") indicate that it is socially inappropriate to speak ill of the dead - Wikipedia, although similar sentiments appear across a wide range of sources.


I wouldn't suggest this holds good for, say, Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin but - if one's rationale for departing from the rule is simply that the deceased was a "controversial figure" of whom one disapproved - this may say more about the speaker than his subject.

Re: Tony Buzan

Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:18 pm
by JustinHorton
Or it might tell you something about the community in which the speaker and the subject coincided.