Re: More details, pls! -- Flambers Drugstore

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Mon, February 23 2004, 13:26:25
Author: Todd
Subject: Re: More details, pls!
In reply to: Peter van der Hoog 's message, "Re: More details, pls!" on Mon, February 23 2004, 12:03:53

>The focus is on the 1972 match but a long introduction
>is spend on Fischer's youth. Nemenyi is mentioned and
>the authors find it near certain that he is Fischer's
>father.

Did they use the same sources with Peter Nicholas: the FBI files and Peter Nemenyi archives or did they find any additional information too?

>But the authors are renowned journalists and the
>quality of their work is outstanding. There is no
>reason for me to mistrust their facts.

Can you give the examples of any new facts from this book? How do those facts refute Rita's words?

>To my surprise in the newsgroups only slight attention
>is given to this excellent book.

I think it is because people are tired of Fischer issue almost as much as Shurik.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: More details, pls! -- Katerina, Tue, February 24 2004, 2:32:32
- Wow, what a dedication: size 50! And why not 60 or 70? -- Margaret, Tue, February 24 2004, 13:53:43
- Re: More details, pls! -- Todd, Tue, February 24 2004, 23:55:17
- Re: More details, pls! -- Peter van der Hoog, Wed, February 25 2004, 7:16:40
  - Opened the shoe tables and completely confused -- Katerina, Wed, February 25 2004, 8:02:06
    - Haven't you guessed yet why it's so important for Peter? -- Margaret, Wed, February 25 2004, 16:38:39
      - Two or three years ago on my forum -- Katerina, Thu, February 26 2004, 3:23:13
        Re: Two or three years ago on my forum -- Margaret, Fri, February 27 2004, 16:00:06
        Very simple?! -- Katerina, Sat, February 28 2004, 3:26:34
        Re:Very simple?! -- Margaret, Sat, February 28 2004, 13:47:44
        Peter can't have asked u about that, Rita, cause he is really shocked. -- Katerina, Sun, February 29 2004, 3:38:41
        Who, blyanakhuj, gives a fuck? -- Todd, happy, Mon, March 01 2004, 2:20:18
        Don't make me laugh! -- Margaret, Mon, March 01 2004, 18:21:33
        No, no, Rita, better stop it... -- Katerina, Tue, March 02 2004, 7:26:51
        Even if you get completely crazy, it will rather happen for another reason! -- Todd, Thu, March 04 2004, 4:26:52
Re: More details, pls! -- Peter van der Hoog, Tue, February 24 2004, 7:10:10
- Did you read this article? -- Todd, Tue, February 24 2004, 23:45:59
  - Re: Did you read this article? -- Peter van der Hoog, Wed, February 25 2004, 7:51:20
    - Found one more thread about it in rgcm -- Todd, Tue, March 09 2004, 1:56:56
- Some of the details seem to be controversial -- Katerina, Wed, February 25 2004, 3:56:27
  - Re: Some of the details seem to be controversial -- Peter van der Hoog, Mon, March 01 2004, 15:33:33
    - Re: Some of the details seem to be controversial -- Katerina, Tue, March 02 2004, 5:01:23
      - Re: Some of the details seem to be controversial -- Peter van der Hoog, Sun, March 07 2004, 5:33:43
        Still controversial -- Katerina, Sun, March 07 2004, 10:40:19
        Re: Still controversial -- Peter van der Hoog, Fri, March 12 2004, 19:23:49
        Re: Still controversial -- Katerina, Sat, March 13 2004, 0:34:03
        "It depends on the person who informed the authors". -- Todd, Mon, March 29 2004, 20:26:46
        So, the circle is closed. Those ppl can't be trust for one bit. -- Katerina, Tue, March 30 2004, 2:33:10