A"Pouting" = "Demand Organizers Adhere to Fair, Ethical Rules"
Denormalization and Noise... Argument Fallacy
Here, for behaving perfectly NORMAL whilst protesting illegal actions by organizers, Fischer's normal everyday actions are “denormalized” by Soviet propaganda; e.g., he was sleeping, he was in his suite, he was pouting, he was this and that and the other, he was also fully within his legal right to protest rule-breaking by Icelandic officials CONSPIRING against him. What was Fischer suppose to do? Go for a swim? They'd criticize that. Perhaps, go out to a restaurant. They'd criticized and scrutinized that. Perhaps fishing. They'd criticized and scrutinized that also.
What is a man suppose to do, when he is justifiably boycotting rule-breaking officials? Then a flood of “noise” a plethora of such abnormal depictions painting Fischer into the corner with bad light. The main rule the Soviets follow is to always be more outspoken than their victims. Many Americans would not know what to make of all the “Noise” so many, many biased reports in American newspapers. Surely with so many critical articles painting Fischer in a bad light, surely, there's justification... no? so they hop aboard the bandwagon. At least that is the hope of the Soviet tournament organizers.
Since the tournament was secluded by the calculated maneuvers of the Soviet Empire, thousands of miles from Fischer's home, it was next to impossible to sort fact from the fiction that turns up in American newspapers. But here it is, from day one, says Col. Edmondson, “Under agreed rules of the match, [Fischer] had the right to object and to demand removal of the cameras if they disturbed him.” But the rules were ignored by Icelandic officials, breaking the rules and demanding camera crews up to three men, be placed in close proximity of Fischer to be permitted to illegally disturb Game #1... which of course, Fischer lost, and as relayed by Paul Marshall the attorney of Robert Fischer, “Bobby told me, ‘I can't think, it's a distraction.’” Then came Game #2 which would repeat the same results for Fischer. What was Fischer to do?
Fischer raised issue with the disruptions of camera and the men operating them, early on, before Game #1 began. He was wrongly criticized in the press, with Americans being misled to believe Fischer was merely “being difficult” and accusing Fischer of acting "illegally," as if some rule were broke, but Fischer was well within his rights, all along, to object. But the articles generated from Soviet-controlled Iceland, turn reality inside-out, and portray events as if Fischer is breaking the rules, to generate sympathy for the Soviets. Fischer's repeated demand, for the cameras and the crews of men operating them to be removed, was fully legal and ethical, as stated by the man who helped originally draft the agreement.
Since the officials stubbornly refused to abide by the rules, Fischer issues official protest, and sets out in official boycott by Game #2. Fischer, according to Isaac Kashdan's report, is unaware his protest must be submitted in writing, and therefore, according to Paul Marshall, “At 11:58 P.M., two minutes before the deadline Cramer, handed a formal written protest to Schmid.”
All along, these officials were fully aware they were breaking the rules. In spite of a legal, binding written protest delivered two minutes before the deadline, the point was forfeited by officials to the Soviets. All the while this Soviet drama was being played out to sour American opinion of Robert Fischer in U.S. Newspapers, led astray by the false narrative that Fischer's “spoiled” complaints were aimed at “inanimate” cameras. Never do the Soviet employed journalists bother mentioning, “instead of..video tape film that didn't make any noise they had guys with film cameras that were..all around..making a racket..and visually you could see them moving around.”- Robert J. Fischer
Robert Fischer Boycotts Second Match in Protest Against Men Hired to Disruptively Operate Cameras 14 Jul 1972, Fri The Call-Leader (Elwood, Indiana) Newspapers.com
This argument fallacy of “Denormalization” and deafening “Noise” was also perpetrated, over a century ago. To convince the world that Paul Morphy had fallen into a state of derangement, the biased reporters would denormalize something as simple as “walking with a cane,” just as millions of other normal gentlemen of the era did, but is described in a manner, to “denormalize” the act of walking with a cane, to “denormalize” the man. Morphy would “stroll and twirling his little cane, talking to himself.” is one example that was repeated in these dehumanizing descriptions, over and over again, and particularly destructive to his reputation. Repeating and republishing defamatory remarks till nothing is left today, in modern literature, of the numerous witnesses, family and friends, who came forward, protesting such cruel remarks published in public press. Even Morphy himself, maintaining his calm against the onslaught of defamation, spoke on some occasions, attempting to make “light humor” of their disparaging remarks in the malignant press, attempting to vindicate himself against such bitter predators spreading defamation in chess circles and public newspapers. It is well documented that due to prejudices revolving around the Civil War, Northern Chess Circles bitterly persecuted Morphy, even clear examples of rewriting his history, denial he once again appeared in New York and Washington, post war to resume his chess activities, but his enemies tried to write these events out of history. Morphy, who was born a Creole in Louisiana (a southern state), and till this day, descendants of Morphy's detractors have obstructed historical accuracy by promoting the fiction that “slaves could not own property” (when in fact, many slaves and “free men” did indeed own property, laws, legal ownership of property, depended entirely upon one's state of residency). Such ahistorical distortions have been used by racists to propose since Morphy's grandmother owned some property, it was therefore “impossible” for Paul Morphy's grandmother to have been of African descent. But that is not so, on the contrary, some slaves did own property in the southern states, as did freed men (former slaves), and decades before the Civil War, Indians, Free Men and White settlers in what was the Louisiana territory intermarried, as there was no law forbidding it, therefore, since Morphy was Creole, it is more than probable that his grandmother, may have been of African descent. “Noise”. So much noise, to drown out what is normal, factual, denial by biased critics who must create a lot of unnecessary “Noise” and distractions to mislead readers that merely imitates “substance”. But is nothing more than a lot of incoherent, contradictory talking about nothing, till the 2 or 3 factual sources reported in a New Orleans paper or the New York Times, were drowned out, and presumably forgotten.
