Fairbairn's Old Fuseki vs New Fuseki now available

[ez4u]

I find these last few posts quite disappointing. First, I think there is nothing offensive about logan's origin post. I saw it shortly after it was posted and thought it was a perfectly reasonable request. Indeed, given the many lovingly crafted posts here and elsewhere over the years by JF, I innocently imagined that he would be happy to elucidate. It seems I was wrong.

Let's be clear about the money. Despite what JF wrote here, he will never receive a dollar from me for his book either this year or next. Is this because I will now refuse to buy it in my righteous wrath? Nope, I am way too addicted to his work. But the simple fact is that he has never received any money from me for any of his books, of which I think I have five so far. When I buy "Fuseki", I will pay 18 dollars plus shipping to Slate and Shell, not to JF. Will S&S keep 95% for themselves and send JF only one of their dollars? It would seem so.

What JF will receive directly from me is the full price for my next copy of GoGoD, which I expect to buy next month (summer 2011). I think that I have bought five or so versions over the last ten years. Has JF received about thirty times as much money for my copies of GoGoD as he has for my copies of his books? It would indeed seem so. Does that seem fair to me? Nope! Should I feel somehow guilty for this state of affairs? I don't think so. I had no part in his contract. Should he abuse those fans who rushed out to buy his book because too many other people did not, and the pay back is low? I don't think that is either fair or reasonable either.

Yo, iG, lighten up! It is true that as Bob Dylan once said, "Just because you like my songs doesn't mean I owe you anything." But the reason for the original request was that we indeed treasure your work!

[John Fairbairn]

edzu, I think you've mis-cued at a few points. I was mildly irritated by logan's first post, but no more. I find language of the type "I hope it's okay if I post some more questions here should they arise reading rest of the book." irritating in general. It's a way of pre-empting a refusal and putting you on the back foot. It's the sort of language used by people who barge into the front of queue by saying, "I hope you won't mind if I go first - I'm in a rush". I don't like queue jumpers. I'm British.

However, I answered politely enough, I think. But firmly. The reference to money was not a gripe so much as a polite way of explaining why I hold my view. It was the second post by logan that made me cross. He not only ignored my plain enough first reply, he went on to repeat his request in a falsely polite way that is designed to make me look curmudgeonly if I say no. The politeness rings false because he ignored the content of my first reply.

I hope some of the other points in your post were just inattentiveness rather than an attempt to cast aspersions, but Slate & Shell do not get to keep 95% of a book's price. There are things like printers and and accountants and taxmen who dip into the pie. Also, I don't get all the money for a GoGoD CD. It is a partnership with T Mark, and we have considerable expenses, too.

If you really do like my work, please re-read what I said earlier, namely "please see it from my point of view". Taking someone for granted just because they do something willingly and often is the prime way of killing off the volunteer spirit, a lesson that can be learned repeatedly from the many long-term volunteers who drop out of go organisation for that reason. If I ever stop doing go stuff it will likewise be because I feel I'm being taken for granted. I never came into go for the money, so a low "pay-off" is not the issue. But even a small amount of money is a sign of not being taken for granted. I'm beginning to wonder if I offer too much free stuff here. Maybe I should just put it all on the CD.

Who is Bob Dylan?

[Kirby]

I agree that John has no obligation to answer questions about his books. I do wonder, though, if it would have taken less text to answer the question than it has taken to argue about it.

[logan]

John, I think you're reading too much into the content of my messages. Their only intention was kindness and respect. But I can only try my best to do so.

It's currently clear to me that you find it offensive to be asked first, as the author, about the content in your book for clarification than the reading audience. But from now on I'll do the opposite.

Thank-you for the time and consideration that you've shown so far, and again I apologize for offending your sensibilities.

-Logan

[bspooky]

edzu, I think you've mis-cued at a few points. I was mildly irritated by logan's first post, but no more. I find language of the type "I hope it's okay if I post some more questions here should they arise reading rest of the book." irritating in general. It's a way of pre-empting a refusal and putting you on the back foot. It's the sort of language used by people who barge into the front of queue by saying, "I hope you won't mind if I go first - I'm in a rush". I don't like queue jumpers. I'm British...

...Who is Bob Dylan?

John, I am wondering if there may be some cultural differences going on here. I don't know if your last question was suppose to be humorous or real, but if it was real it illustrates nicely that there are cultural influences on how we communicate. BTW, if your question was real, Bob Dylan is an American singer/songwriter/poet who is also popular in your country (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/musi ... years.html)

I agree with you that Logan's follow up seemed to not take into account your justifiable position of an author not needing to provide further support of a book already published. However, could you have read too much into his original post? In your first paragraph I quoted above you read a lot into the "I hope it is OK if I post some more questions here.." As a neophyte at Go and a newbie on this forum, I could easily have seen myself asking if it was OK to ask questions in a certain thread. And by no means am I a line jumper (I detest people who do that as well). Could you have been drawing a conclusions formed based on our own background and cultural and perhaps reacted a little too strongly? Maybe logan's subsequent post, ignoring your clarification of your position, lends more weight to your interpretation of his first post. I may be too much an idealist, but would prefer to give logan's initial request a little more innocence than the unrealistic demand that seems to have been placed on it.

[RobertJasiek]

I do wonder, though, if it would have taken less text to answer the question than it has taken to argue about it.

This is unfair. - If somebody defends a principle, then he does so for different reasons than those for answering a particular question. Defending the principle may consume more time than answering the one question but certainly not than abandoning the principle and answer the next 100 questions, too.

[tchan001]

I'm having difficulty understanding your short book explanation of "harmony breaking." If possible, could you please give some more details and examples of Shuho fuseki method (outlined in Hoen Shimpo) vs. the Shusai "harmony breaking" fuseki method?

The question you pose seems to be the type which is quite time-consuming in order for an author to provide a full and satisfactory answer. It might take a short amount of time to just elucidate "harmony breaking", but the part about giving details and examples with comparison of the two different fuseki methods seems to be quite a big job. It's one thing to expect a few lines of friendly comments to help you out, but it seems what you are asking could possibly fill a small booklet. Can you imagine what it would be like if a beginner asked you to find the perfect games to illustrate how the Chinese fuseki compares with the Mini-Chinese fuseki?

[John Fairbairn]

bspooky (and logan): yes, it's perfectly possible that I read unintended things into the posts, and if I did, of course I regret that. But in my defence, as I have said before, several times, I get pestered by e-mail from people who think I run a free go consultancy service (e.g. "what's the value of this old book I bought on e-bay?" or "I have a school essay to write - can you tell me all about..."), and I have been suckered once too often into giving a time-consuming reply only to find the reason for the request was, "Oh, I was just curious". I then seethe. The proportion of time-wasting or cheeky requests is very high, I find, so I'm apt to assume the worst when a new request comes along. Part of the smooth running of the GoGoD operation is due to the fact that T Mark diplomatically fields many of these requests before I have a chance to bite more heads off.

In short: with me, you always have a much better (but still not great) chance of getting a reply if you explain why you are asking, and if it's a good reason.

While I still have no intention of writing an essay on "harmony breaking", I did look at the section logan referred to, and discovered a possible reason for his confusion: a misprint. Oddly enough, it came in at the proof-reading stage, but it's still my booboo. It's probably important enough for other readers to want to note. At the bottom of page 5, where it says "B is a partial defence" it should be "18 is a partial defence". So, my apologies for that.

Also, note that the Shuho book referred to is here: http://www.gogod.co.uk/Shinpo/Shinpo001.htm (in part; in full on the GoGoD CD).

"Who is Bob Dylan?" is itself a cultural allusion (to "Who are the Beatles?"). I won't bother to explain. Of course I really know who Bob Dylan is. He's a slugger for the Nationals. Goes by the nickname of Ryan.

[bspooky]

.....

"Who is Bob Dylan?" is itself a cultural allusion (to "Who are the Beatles?"). I won't bother to explain. Of course I really know who Bob Dylan is. He's a slugger for the Nationals. Goes by the nickname of Ryan.

Now that, truly make me laugh out loud. Cheers.

As to the rest of your post...perfectly understandable. I would imagine experts and well known people (like you, RJ, and others) in the Go world get inundated with questions and requests.

[Kirby]

I do wonder, though, if it would have taken less text to answer the question than it has taken to argue about it.

This is unfair. - If somebody defends a principle, then he does so for different reasons than those for answering a particular question. Defending the principle may consume more time than answering the one question but certainly not than abandoning the principle and answer the next 100 questions, too.

Sure, but what "principle" is being defended here? "I have time to answer your question, but I won't, because you haven't paid me money"?

And what's wrong with answering 100 questions? If you don't want to answer, it's fine to simply ignore the post, too.

Posting is optional, but I don't see much of a "principle" behind refraining from promoting knowledge to other people "just for the sake of it".

[Kirby]

To be clear, what I originally posted was, "I do wonder, though, if it would have taken less text to answer the question than it has taken to argue about it.".

As stated earlier, this does not mean that I feel that any author is required any explanation for anything.

I simply find it curious that so much discussion is going into the "principle" behind the matter. I'm sure that people will continue to ask questions when they are confused about a topic.

[hyperpape]

Sure, but what "principle" is being defended here? "I have time to answer your question, but I won't, because you haven't paid me money"?

And what's wrong with answering 100 questions? If you don't want to answer, it's fine to simply ignore the post, too.

A principle of "I can't answer everything and I don't want people to expect that I'll do so."

As for ignoring people, that has its costs too. Many of the people asking the questions probably don't feel that it's fine to ignore, and will raise quite a stink about it.

[Kirby]

Sure, but what "principle" is being defended here? "I have time to answer your question, but I won't, because you haven't paid me money"?

And what's wrong with answering 100 questions? If you don't want to answer, it's fine to simply ignore the post, too.

A principle of "I can't answer everything and I don't want people to expect that I'll do so."

As for ignoring people, that has its costs too. Many of the people asking the questions probably don't feel that it's fine to ignore, and will raise quite a stink about it.

Fair enough. It's an interesting perspective, but I suppose that I can see this viewpoint.

[RobertJasiek]

And what's wrong with answering 100 questions? If you don't want to answer, it's fine to simply ignore the post, too.

It is being put in the defense. When not answering the 100 questions, one "has to" justify for not doing so. Simply ignoring does not work - "Cannot even answer simple questions...!" That is wrong. An expert should not be put in the defense corner in the first place. It is like the everyday KGS question "A [free high handicap] game please! ... Come on! ... Are you too weak to beat me...?!" combined with multiple game requests by the same user within a minute. Even experts need rest instead of replacing it by defense explanations.

[Kirby]

And what's wrong with answering 100 questions? If you don't want to answer, it's fine to simply ignore the post, too.

It is being put in the defense. When not answering the 100 questions, one "has to" justify for not doing so. Simply ignoring does not work - "Cannot even answer simple questions...!" That is wrong. An expert should not be put in the defense corner in the first place. It is like the everyday KGS question "A [free high handicap] game please! ... Come on! ... Are you too weak to beat me...?!" combined with multiple game requests by the same user within a minute. Even experts need rest instead of replacing it by defense explanations.

Well, to be clear, I am not saying that anyone "has to" do anything. I just am saying that it is interesting to me that so much effort is exerted not to do something that appears to be more simple.