From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Fischer - Spassky: The Prize
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:58:29 GMT

In <1992Sep5.001002.24502@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:

>In article <palane.715642724@pv742b.vincent.iastate.edu> palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
>>
>>Please, wait until a flame happens until you start threatening legal action.
>>And yes, talking about under oath is a specific threat. 

>You misunderstood me. I was not threatening. What I meant to say is that the
>statement was based on my direct experience rather than on second-hand news
>sources, so there is no qualifier like "if newspapers tell the truth" involved

>And note that no part of that (i.e. defensible under oath) statement was 
>specifically about Vasiljevic or any other named person. I think I was very
>clear and it is not my fault if you don't read carefully.

Granted. Although when you start using terms such as 'under oath', this has a
very clear implication. Your restatement seems appropriate. However, Vasilije-
vic is the only person you could be talking about, even if you didn't know
who he is.

>>Hyperbole of the highest order. Any by the way, given that I have a news
>>source of impeccable credentials, I'm also quite willing to back my words.

>I don't mean to dispute the NYT, but you can not back your words based on a
>news article in the sense of being a witness. (Again, this is a difference in
>principle - I do not doubt that the NYT article is true.)

In terms of a debate, I could. News sources are legitemate in a discussion
which is what we're doing. Neither of us has first-hand knowledge of the
man's business dealings, so we're left to argue.

>>If anyone is interested in details, I'd be glad to scrounge my paper from the
>>trash and post a summary. It's not that this is a fellow who deserves to be
>>canonized, but the claims made here seem to be excessive, given that Sven
>>knows nothing about the fellow.

>Well, now I know something, and as I see it, the information you provided just
>shows that I was on the right track. Maybe even that I was completely right -
>the term "black market" can include some of my guesses (yes, GUESSES, not 
>CLAIMS, please - don't twist my words!) 

I'll grant the semantics. My use of the term claim is hereby withdrawn.
However, you neglect any information which is in direct contradiction with{f*your guesses (namely, that he made his stake abroad, not in Yugoslavia.)
BTW, would you be interested in me posting a summary of the information.

>But what the heck! This is rec.games.chess, and this has gone too far from
>the subject. 

>Sven

It certainly is recreation (of course, I do enjoy argument). You're very much
right that the individual sponsoring this contest, his motives, and how he
put together the match are of interest. However, before weighing in with
several paragraphs of guesses, I think it would have been more appropriate
to post a message such as WHO IS THIS GUY?

Hopefully sometime, we will have a chance to meet over a board (or over a 
beer). Until then, enjoy yourself. You certainly have livened up the forum.
Now if we can only get Dennis Baker posting again.

Paul