Sunday, October 9, 2011

Let It Be Known

I think the person who reported back to Fuhrer has a lot to explain. This is a very easy way to escape any form of responsibility. Hide behind a ghost. Someone said this to me. I am just going to pass the word even though it was a lie. Doesn't this remind you of what someone said about Rationality. All Jimmy and I did was to pass along Rationality's blog post and Fuhrer here decides that Jimmy is in charge of the attack. Now, let me use the same logic that since Fuhrer used the information that a deal was offered, he is claiming it to be true. Let us also postulate that he must have done his homework and found all relevant evidence to support his claim that a deal was offered to Zhuo Ren.

If this was not true, then the above statement which I grabbed from FGM's blog is simply malicious. It was posted with an intent to lie and mislead and more importantly, to dishonour the IM's. For someone to lodge a complaint, one must have at least cause for concern. I cannot simply run around lodging frivolous complaints. Every one with a pea brain knows that. So the big elephant in the room is, what is the cause for complaint? Who is the "informer". I put it to you that there is no informer. It is just Raymond making up stories because we now have proof that there is no deal. Raymond has used an "informer" to escape responsibility of posting vicious lies.

What about this one:

He is accusing Jimmy (and friends) of selling shortcuts. Now, it has been proven that no such thing happened. So where is the answer now Fuhrer?

Now, Fuhrer says that he did not say that Jimmy attacked Zhuo Ren. Or did he? His complicity on the attack on Zhuo Ren? What did he do to attack Zhuo Ren? Zhuo Ren asked Jimmy to post an email as a favor, and Jimmy did it. According to, the meaning of complicit is as follows:

choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, especially with others; having complicity.
So, if Fuhrer is saying that Jimmy is complicit on his attack on Zhuo Ren, then it means that Jimmy has chosen to be involved in "attacking" Zhuo Ren, and especially with others. So actually, yes, Fuhrer has specifically said that Jimmy attacked Zhuo Ren. Unless we have to go back to, "throwing" a game is not actually throwing a game. We have all played that game before.

And now, the biggest bullshit of all:

OK, so he has not said Jimmy attacked Zhuo Ren. But the biggest question then is, "WHO DID?" Could it be FGM himself? Could it be that FGM attacked Zhuo Ren, but Jimmy was helping Zhuo Ren clear his name, and therefore he is now culpable for all the attacks on Zhuo Ren? To be honest, I am very curious... What is this attack that FGM always speaks of? What exactly is this attack? Was it the non-existent deal that was offered to Zhuo Ren? But if there was no deal, then there was no attack? FGM has a lot to explain.

Now, he also says that Jimmy was also culpable. Again, big words for a small man. Let us leave no room for gaps and go to again.
deserving blame or censure; blameworthy.
So, if Jimmy did not attack Zhuo Ren, and there was no attack on Zhuo Ren, then he is to be blamed for what? Posting an email? Who is to say that if Jimmy did not post that email, Zhuo Ren would not start his own blog and post his email there? What would the difference be then? 

This is the kind of poor attitude and logical skills of the mind coach that Malaysia has for its chess team. It makes me worried about the state of Malaysian chess. Please call for a selection for mind coaches. We want a written selection for mind coaches. Or at least a transparent process on who the mind coach should be. After all, he is "endorsed" by the MCF. That means he is able to use that "endorsement" to actually acquire favors.


  1. Hi dear Ninja,
    1. Agreed and quite concern about your last paragraph, particularly the last sentence.

    2. If MCF chose to silent on individual case where a private blog attacks baselessly on individual player/players (even they may be our IMs, or national players), i think it is still "acceptable" as MCF will otherwise be very busy with those nonsenses.

    3. However, if MCF had ever endorsed any "National Mind Coach" whom later was found unfit and/or bringing damages to Malaysian chess, i think MCF must not silent and should seriously consider to withdraw it.


  2. There is no such thing as MCF endorsed "mind coach" (what the heck is a mind coach anyway?). Raymond self titled himself because he happened to have a plane ticket to ASEAN tournament and to justify his presence he bestowed the title on himself. The problem is why the MCF official present at the event did not clarify this and in a way "silently" acknowledge it. This gives Raymond the license he sought to say he is "recognized" by MCF as such. MCF problem is it did not immediately issue a statement. It still can do so to redeem itself.

  3. Jimmy's comment is true indeed. No one take it seriuosly within MCF on "Mind Coach Raymond", in fact people from within laugh over the quote!

  4. Hi Jimmy & Anonswriter,
    1. tks for clarifying.
    2. I am wrong to believe that MCF has actually endorsed "National Mind Coach". Sorry, MCF.
    3. However I am glad that i am wrong. Because my chess friend in oversea also has the same believe and "asked" me if MCF = Mind Coach Federation.
    4. It is either someone told the lie or my friend and i didn't read his article properly.