Decency in Chess Communications
Chess One
It is no matter for Sam Sloan to illustrate the FSS by committing the very
same crime as the FSS, which is to broadcast disgusting material in public;
any more than it is for those who object to this material to continually
refer to it, by posting it here or by providing URLs.
The matter is that /the material/ is offensive, not who writes it - but who
broadcasts and advertises it in public.
Since neither Sam Sloan nor those at USCF who found his materials offensive,
did anything to resolve this issue by instituting standards which would
limit the scope of those who broadcast and advertise such materials - then I
find both sides equally at fault - and both sides hypocritical, since both
prefer to either blame or play victim to doing anything for anyone else.
I would specifically inhibit anyone publishing these materials from having
anything to do with scholastic chess, at any level whatever, including
managing clerical functions or setting policy.
Although the materials are permissible under law as not offending /minimum/
standards of public decency, they are insufficient to audit those things
which require more than a minimal standard.
Demanding of others that they condemn what is not illegal public expression
is fatuous, if no concomitant effort is made to institute standards which
are decent in respect to those offended.
---
This newsgroup has become, by the absence of such a standard, almost as bad
as USCF itself, who promised to address this and similar issues to do with
internal standards, but signally failed to do so - preferring the minimum
standard of the law, and lawyers to figure it out - than to take the actions
which would avert it ever occurring - and which would be impartially binding
on all board members, staff, delegates and volunteers.
The current mess is directly linked to this 4 year failure to adequately
address what is known to be wrong, in preference to personality engagement
with issues which certainly would not bear much investigation if exposed to
sunlight.
---
Sympathy for the USCF is as hard to find as it is for the Devil. This is no
'3 strikes you're out' scenario. We now have dozens of personality-oriented
'issues' which have emerged only because no group ethic is subscribed to by
the organization.
It is not 'free speech' to say anything you wish, however decent that may
be - the freedom granted under the constitution of the united states is to
speak your conscience - not to speak scurrilous speculations - who needs any
permission to do that?
---
I have asked USCF staff and board if they would address this issue, and they
will not - the reason stated on the phone and not for the record, is that
they will not do so corporately, since even the subject of objective public
standards of decency are resented by some who will not limit their personal
expression in order that USCF as a group can achieve more than any
individual.
Phil Innes
Vermont
Mike Murray
wrote:
>I see several communications here today which are offensive to decency.
>It is no matter for Sam Sloan to illustrate the FSS by committing the very
>same crime as the FSS, which is to broadcast disgusting material in public;
>any more than it is for those who object to this material to continually
>refer to it, by posting it here or by providing URLs.
Yeah, that would keep people from finding out about how offensive the
FSS actually was, wouldn't it? That way people would not get as irate
about it.
Jeez- you flacks cover all the angles.
>The matter is that /the material/ is offensive, not who writes it - but who
>broadcasts and advertises it in public.
Maybe we should add "The List of the Ostrich" to "The List of the
Blind Monkey".
>Since neither Sam Sloan nor those at USCF who found his materials offensive,
>did anything to resolve this issue by instituting standards which would
>limit the scope of those who broadcast and advertise such materials - then I
>find both sides equally at fault - and both sides hypocritical, since both
>prefer to either blame or play victim to doing anything for anyone else.
No matter how you try to spin it, Phil, describing vile usage is NOT
the same as using it. Think meta-usage.
Chess One
"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:s27gm3do22nuj3ahl...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:03:28 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I see several communications here today which are offensive to decency.
>
>>It is no matter for Sam Sloan to illustrate the FSS by committing the very
>>same crime as the FSS, which is to broadcast disgusting material in
>>public;
>>any more than it is for those who object to this material to continually
>>refer to it, by posting it here or by providing URLs.
>
> Yeah, that would keep people from finding out about how offensive the
> FSS actually was, wouldn't it? That way people would not get as irate
> about it.
Not at all - anyone who suffered a year of obscene posts would already
know - those people who did not could trust the opinion of this community of
poster <right?>
As for 'irate' is that actually you personally want?
> Jeez- you flacks cover all the angles.
So Mike Murray prefers obscene materials posted here, in order to object to
it being posted here, because other people will not have a chance to become
irate and offended.
>>The matter is that /the material/ is offensive, not who writes it - but
>>who
>>broadcasts and advertises it in public.
>
> Maybe we should add "The List of the Ostrich" to "The List of the
> Blind Monkey".
Maybe you should just come out of the closet, and declare that you get off
on it? Or maybe not? Since it seems to matter to Mike Murray who is obscene,
since he passes on commenting on the obscenity itself.
>>Since neither Sam Sloan nor those at USCF who found his materials
>>offensive,
>>did anything to resolve this issue by instituting standards which would
>>limit the scope of those who broadcast and advertise such materials - then
>>I
>>find both sides equally at fault - and both sides hypocritical, since both
>>prefer to either blame or play victim to doing anything for anyone else.
>
> No matter how you try to spin it, Phil, describing vile usage is NOT
> the same as using it. Think meta-usage.
And now the metaphysical approach, where Mike does not venture his own
opinion, though he nevertheless asks me personally to subscribe to no
standards whatever.
And since that is the cut bit of my post by Murray, I shall not ask Mike
Murray anything further on this subject of public standards, since he
volunteers to /not support/ decency in public speech, while nevertheless
continuing to posit abstract nonsense and 'meta-usage' and says such
expression is 'spin'.
Long time ago I told Bill Brock that repressives were just as
psychologically culpable as expressives - the obsession is the same. Some
seek a liberation by compulsively putting it out there and seeking a
self-justified conflict, some wish to stuff it and hope it will go away.
Both are forms of denial to what actually /is/.
When another poster challenged standards I suggested 2 years ago, he could
not understand that those offended should speak - and those are our women
folk and our children, especially female children.
Readers will note further responses which have no "I" statements in them, as
if the speaker would represent others, not their own - and that is where the
crux of it meets the reality test of public acceptance of measures
absolutely normal in our society, but avoided in chess by those who prefer
it the way it is.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
>>>It is no matter for Sam Sloan to illustrate the FSS by committing the very
>>>same crime as the FSS, which is to broadcast disgusting material in
>>>public;
>>>any more than it is for those who object to this material to continually
>>>refer to it, by posting it here or by providing URLs.
>> Yeah, that would keep people from finding out about how offensive the
>> FSS actually was, wouldn't it? That way people would not get as irate
>> about it.
>Not at all - anyone who suffered a year of obscene posts would already
>know - those people who did not could trust the opinion of this community of
>poster <right?>
Right. With journalists such as P Innes reporting on it. Right. The
Truth would out. NOT.
>As for 'irate' is that actually you personally want?
Oh, no, Phil. I want people to be gentle and understanding and just
not think or talk about the nice stuff the FSS spewed out.
>> Jeez- you flacks cover all the angles.
>So Mike Murray prefers obscene materials posted here, in order to object to
>it being posted here, because other people will not have a chance to become
>irate and offended.
Oh, but Phil, you were objecting to *links* to the stuff you want to
hide from. The links aren't also obscene, are they? The just
provide a path to something you're even more afraid of: evidence.
And P Innes want to protect all these gentle people from the nasty
things that were said, things so offensive, he wants to cover them up.
Keep a lid on it, Phil, that's the ticket. Damper down the outrage.
Maybe you'll get some nice interviews out of it.
marcusw...@hughes.net
Phil Innes,
So, your side is getting your asses kicked in a civil chess war, and
you want peace. Offer rejceted. We intend to shut down corporate
operations with respect to scholastic chess. That is, to protect
children, we need to halt all scholastic chess activity, nationwide.
Marcus Roberts
marcusw...@hughes.net
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:01:12 -0500, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net>
Perhaps the real issue is that the USCF suppots
Will Phil Innes reject all assocation with NAMBLA?
Marcus Roberts
The Historian
> No matter how you try to spin it, Phil, describing vile usage is NOT
> the same as using it. Think meta-usage.
Speaking of vile language, use Google to look up the number of times
Philth "Decency in Chess" Innes uses the Anglo-Saxon word for
fornication in his posts.
The Historian
> By your own token then FSS is innocent. No matter how you try to spin it,
> Mike, FSS describing vile usage by the original Sam Sloan is NOT the same
> as using it. Think meta-usage.
Think identity theft. If you can think, of course.
Chess One
<marcusw...@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:2240e520-830c-4b2d...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 4:30 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:01:12 -0500, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> And P Innes want to protect all these gentle people from the nasty
>> things that were said, things so offensive, he wants to cover them up.
Mike Murray is a bald-faced liar. In fact, I want this issue to go to court,
and I want people who took part in the kangaroo court to become famous,
thereby!
As for covering things up - look what Murray has already done to the
question of public decency, aided and abetted by abusenik Brennan. That is
his alternate standard.
>> Keep a lid on it, Phil, that's the ticket. Damper down the outrage.
>> Maybe you'll get some nice interviews out of it.
>
> Perhaps the real issue is that the USCF suppots
>
> http://www.nambla.org/
>
> Will Phil Innes reject all assocation with NAMBLA?
That is a diversion here. This thread is about standards and decency of
communications - if you can't be bothered to think of any, go speculate
somewhere else.
People who have written in this thread so far are /terrified/ of standards,
since if implemented, they would not be able to conduct their 'activities,'
or would forego them forever with any entity which actually deployed
standards.
Free speech does not mean you are free of speaking any bloody nonsense
enters your head, that requires no permit.
Phil Innes
> Marcus Roberts
Chess One
"The Historian" <neil.the...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c30b3f4e-6a04-4f39...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
ROFL: Here is the expert 'historian' who has declared Old English dead,
using 4 words of old english to say so! :)))
Here he commits another beaut - though not quite on the same scale, since
seems to think the Ramsey word is A. Sax, whereas, as ani ful no, it is
imported into Anglo Norman from Dutch - which is to say that he is only
about 1,000 years off.
But the main thing is that the abusenik Brennan also fails to note the
circumstances of using the f-word - which so often is his own mocking of
those who have been stalked. He so wants to cover that up - but everything
he writes confirms his own profile - and he lacks the wit to see how he outs
himself - all one needs to do is raise certain subjects, and he comes right
on.
Let the Watchers, once more, take note.
That is the standard of decency of this bloke! He doesn't like women or
chess, doesn't like those who do, does like to play games with other
people's names &c
Phil Innes
The Historian
> <marcuswrobe...@hughes.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2240e520-830c-4b2d...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 18, 4:30 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:01:12 -0500, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> And P Innes want to protect all these gentle people from the nasty
> >> things that were said, things so offensive, he wants to cover them up.
>
> Mike Murray is a bald-faced liar.
As usual, no need to read further, once you find an Innes lie or
mistake.
The Historian
>...objective public
> standards of decency....
Here's Philth with his potty mouth on:
"I must remind any reader here that the person who writes this
describes
himself as an 'historian', but one who has apparently read fuck-all."
"But still you fuck with the subject, lol!!"
"Louis, this is boring beyond tears. I have wondered why you agitate
on
the
unbidden behest of others, without the slightest attempt to even
identify
what the fuck you are now objecting to"
"You are the motherfucker who has continously excited these events,"
"And if you fuck with me and mine I will certainly make entirely sure
you
understand me without a shadow of a doubt."
"Will your sub-personality xganon-fuck show up..."
"Fuck your condolences."
"if you cant write your own name to your posts why dont you fuck off?"
"...fuck that for a game of charlies!"
"Mala fides, malignum spernere vulgus!
(Bad faith and fuck the people)"
"Neither of these people seem to me to be hyphenable-fuck to me."
"If you want to fuck with me lets sort it out. Come on... Lets do it.
Where
do you both live?"
"So interest from Americans has to go around, even avoid USCF [because
they
will fuck it up],"
"'fuck' Sam, why be coy when talking of freudian sluts"
"Fuck him! "
Mike Murray
>By your own token then FSS is innocent. No matter how you try to spin it,
>Mike, FSS describing vile usage by the original Sam Sloan is NOT the same
>as using it. Think meta-usage.
Indeed, if the FSS had merely *described* vile usage by the original
Sam Sloan, rather than imitated it, falsely attributed it to others,
and added his/her own scurrilous twist, you'd have a point.
But since he didn't, you either need remedial work in reading,
language usage or thinking. Or perhaps all three.
Feel free to try again, though. Phil needs comradeship.
Mike Murray
<neil.the...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 18, 12:03 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>...objective public
>> standards of decency....
>
>Here's Philth with his potty mouth on:
Yes, but you see, at the time he wrote this stuff, P Innes wasn't
trying to cut the legs off a recall effort.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
> But since he didn't, you either need remedial work in reading,
> language usage or thinking. Or perhaps all three.
Wouldn't the way to say it be "you need remedial work in EITHER reading,
language usage, or thinking?"
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
Mike Murray
\"pivot\"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
>
>> But since he didn't, you either need remedial work in reading,
>> language usage or thinking. Or perhaps all three.
>
>Wouldn't the way to say it be "you need remedial work in EITHER reading,
>language usage, or thinking?"
I thought "either" limited one to only two choices. Is this
incorrect?
The Historian
At the risk of being told I need remedial work in reading, language
usage, thinking, or perhaps all three, I'm giving the nod to Ray
Gordon. It's been ages since I've diagrammed a sentence, but Ray's
version is neater. "Either" is serving as a conjunction, and as a
conjunction it isn't restricted in the number of items it connects.
Both are more or less correct as far as I can tell, but Ray's is a
little neater, if only because the items in the list are parallel in
form.
Mike's:
...you either:
need remedial work in reading,
[need remedial work in] language usage,
or [need remedial work in] thinking.
Ray's:
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>> language usage or thinking. Or perhaps all three.
>>
>>Wouldn't the way to say it be "you need remedial work in EITHER reading,
>>language usage, or thinking?"
>
> I thought "either" limited one to only two choices. Is this
> incorrect?
You said "either need remdial work in <>"
What's the OR?
"What's this thing called, Love?"
Mike Murray
\"pivot\"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
>>>> But since he didn't, you either need remedial work in reading,
>>>> language usage or thinking. Or perhaps all three.
>>>
>>>Wouldn't the way to say it be "you need remedial work in EITHER reading,
>>>language usage, or thinking?"
>>
>> I thought "either" limited one to only two choices. Is this
>> incorrect?
>
>You said "either need remdial work in <>"
>What's the OR?
Uncle! You and the Historian are correct. I should have said
something like, "you need remedial work in reading or language or
thinking. Or perhaps in all three".
Chess One
> On Dec 18, 12:03 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>...objective public
>> standards of decency....
>
> Here's Philth with his potty mouth on:
Neil Brennan is a stalker who jokes about offenses to my family caused by
someone who follows only his own posts. It is his own writing which is
indecent, and if he had a family then he too might resent abuseniks
threatening them.
Neil Brennan is such a disgusting character that he even suggested I wrote
the material myself. So if I tell you all that this is why I tell him to
fuck-off with his lurid commentaries, then he will not be brave enough to
repeat that context - since he really enjoys doing it.
THIS IS WHO IS DISCUSSING DECENCY here. And, look at who has chipped in, and
what they have to say!
Nothing at all to any point of who is offended.
Phil Innes
Chess One
So in some half dozen responses the subject of indecent speculations on
women and children are ignored by the posters, who continue to write
speculative trash about other people in public.
Who are these characters kidding that they care for any standards at all?
They have none. Nothing, not a word.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Who are these characters kidding that they care for any standards at all?
>They have none. Nothing, not a word.
For once, P Innes has a good point. If we had standards, we wouldn't
be entering into discussion with the likes of him.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>> incorrect?
>>
>>You said "either need remdial work in <>"
>
>>What's the OR?
>
>
> Uncle! You and the Historian are correct. I should have said
> something like, "you need remedial work in reading or language or
> thinking. Or perhaps in all three".
"You need remeidial work in reading, language, thinking, or perhaps all
three."
I'm a professional typist though.
Vance
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> >>> I thought "either" limited one to only two choices. Is this
> >>> incorrect?
>
> >>You said "either need remdial work in <>"
>
> >>What's the OR?
>
> > Uncle! You and the Historian are correct. I should have said
> > something like, "you need remedial work in reading or language or
> > thinking. Or perhaps in all three".
>
> "You need remeidial work in reading, language, thinking, or perhaps all
> three."
>
> I'm a professional typist though.
>
A person would have a hard time determining that from your postings
over the years.
Mike Murray
\"pivot\"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
>> Uncle! You and the Historian are correct. I should have said
>> something like, "you need remedial work in reading or language or
>> thinking. Or perhaps in all three".
>"You need remeidial work in reading, language, thinking, or perhaps all
>three."
>I'm a professional typist though.
I won't holler Uncle so quick on this one.
Writing informally, I intended the sentence fragment to convey a
slight pause, as if I reflected a moment, then decided more than a
single remedial program might be necessary. IMO, one loses that
nuance with your (more grammatically correct) version.
The phrase might have been cleaner without the "in", however. I'll
give you that.
marcusw...@hughes.net
> <marcuswrobe...@hughes.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Phil
No, you are the spokesman for the 2010 Presidential Election campaign
for Susan Polgar to be leader of FIDE. It is fair
to ask a north american candidate who refuses to associate names
NAMBLA members! Otherwise, I could name names,
and accuse people of being NAMBLA members. Instead of that, Roberts
rules of order calls me from avoiding names. I would
be correct on the floor of the Board of Delegates (who would be dumb
enough to be a member and get sued over this by reason
of serving without any liability insurance) to ask the question like I
did.
"Mike Murray is a bald-faced liar. In fact, I want this issue to go to
court,
and I want people who took part in the kangaroo court to become
famous,
thereby!"
Phil, there isn't going to be any court to resolve all of this. The
truth is the truth, Paul Truong is gulity of being the Fake
Sam Sloan. What you want to do is confuse the issue, so Susan Polgar
can be President of FIDE.
I vote for Kirsan over Susan. Susan has been closer to death threats
than Kirsan. Given a choice, I support Kirsan.
Some cases might go to court, but this scandle can't be resolved by
any court that does not sit in Switzerland. In the end,
this is an IOC quesiton until we pull out, and US courts can't order
anything to do with the USA FIDE Delegate.
Had you not jumped into a FIDE Presidential Race in 2010, maybe you
are right....
Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE
Chess One
<marcusw...@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:56d2c1ee-6d94-425f...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Phil
No, you are the spokesman for the 2010 Presidential Election campaign
for Susan Polgar to be leader of FIDE.
**Is that true? Does it have a good salary? And does Susan Polgar [and
actually, do I?] know anything about my elevation to the spokespersonship?
** Thank you for informing us both of our future prospects, and I cannot
sensibly say more at the moment since you seem to know more than I. If it is
based in Lubbock, do you think they will make me feed and water Gata's
camel? [I also wonder, BTW, if you are being informed by anyone of real
intelligence, in 2 senses of intelligence?] Merry Christmas to you, and to
St Kitts and Nevis, which I further admit not knowing the exact whereabouts
thereof - therefore cannot immediately invade and take over the government -
we have so much snow its hard to even get out of the driveway! Phil Innes
Chess One
<marcusw...@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:56d2c1ee-6d94-425f...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 8:40 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <marcuswrobe...@hughes.net> wrote in message
> People who have written in this thread so far are /terrified/ of
> standards,
> since if implemented, they would not be able to conduct their
> 'activities,'
> or would forego them forever with any entity which actually deployed
> standards.
>
> Free speech does not mean you are free of speaking any bloody nonsense
> enters your head, that requires no permit.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > Marcus Roberts- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Phil
No, you are the spokesman for the 2010 Presidential Election campaign
for Susan Polgar to be leader of FIDE.
**But if it turns out I am not, then is everything else untrue as well? Or
does that make the slightest difference to you? I rather think not, but who
knows? Phil Innes
Chess One
If you had any standards, Mike Murray, you would propose them, instead of
non-stop trashing of other people in your relentless quest for a bit of
excitement at anyone's expense. You see, philosophy is not to do with what
people say of themselves, it is a reflection on how they actually behave.
What is someone like you doing writing to a subject like this? - you even
resent reactions against the //grossest possible// insults, by failing to
mention that anyone would protect their very family! You can continue to
speculate on this - which I will note - as others now do. That is your
choice.
You write that you would condescend to take people seriously - what an arse
you are, Murray! What should anyone present anything at all to you, ever?
You are not brave enough to cite what causes people to say the f word, and
to that degree of humanity you profess, along with the fake vicar, the known
abusenik name-assuming stalker, the insensibly laughable jurist, and the
hysteric pirate Roberts, you pin your standards to the mast after selecting
your own crew - not by how you present yourself - which is merely a
facetiously egoic self-presentation - but by how you continue to behave.
One thing is for sure - when this issue is resolved, none of the above or
anyone like them, will have aught to do with chess policy again. That is a
surety you can take to the bank, and it is no 50 buck bet, but a 50,000
dollar one.
Its your mouth - and it won't be me who first asks you and your friends to
account for it.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
>You are not brave enough to cite what causes people to say the f word,
??
>to that degree of humanity you profess, along with the fake vicar,
Fake? He's legally an ordained man of the cloth. Are you libeling
him?
> the known
>abusenik name-assuming stalker, the insensibly laughable jurist, and the
>hysteric pirate Roberts, you pin your standards to the mast after selecting
>your own crew - not by how you present yourself - which is merely a
>facetiously egoic self-presentation - but by how you continue to behave.
>One thing is for sure - when this issue is resolved, none of the above or
>anyone like them, will have aught to do with chess policy again. That is a
>surety you can take to the bank, and it is no 50 buck bet, but a 50,000
>dollar one.
>Its your mouth - and it won't be me who first asks you and your friends to
>account for it.
You mean, you will be standing in the line of people wasting to file
suit? Is that what you're saying?
Chess One
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:26:12 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You are not brave enough to cite what causes people to say the f word,
>
> ??
you cite a serial stalker, Murray, who obscenely jokes about abuse of others
and yet you pretend you don't know nuthin with your ??
:))
>>to that degree of humanity you profess, along with the fake vicar,
>
> Fake? He's legally an ordained man of the cloth. Are you libeling
> him?
he is a fatuous inveigler of dirt intent on causing dissention by
irresponsible and crudely speculatory commentaries, which have nothing to do
with 'reverence' to any known subject he himself has raised - perhaps he is
a dirty vicar, or no vicar at all? i don't know except by his own behavior
here
so many of your colleagues seem to use remailers for their posts - i am
amazed it has escaped your attention, though not your wit, which i do not
credit to be honest enough to notice the fact, or why they do it
and acually, i do not even credit you to acknowledge the fact if you did ken
their 'orientation', since here you are as lead guy, and as slimely a
character as could be!
>> the known
>>abusenik name-assuming stalker, the insensibly laughable jurist, and the
>>hysteric pirate Roberts, you pin your standards to the mast after
>>selecting
>>your own crew - not by how you present yourself - which is merely a
>>facetiously egoic self-presentation - but by how you continue to behave.
>
>>One thing is for sure - when this issue is resolved, none of the above or
>>anyone like them, will have aught to do with chess policy again. That is a
>>surety you can take to the bank, and it is no 50 buck bet, but a 50,000
>>dollar one.
>
>>Its your mouth - and it won't be me who first asks you and your friends to
>>account for it.
>
> You mean, you will be standing in the line of people wasting to file
> suit? Is that what you're saying?
There are so many things which you do not suspect which are not susceptible
to your flip judgmental self-presentation on usenet, but which are to do
with irresponsible expressions, not supported under the law
You will, no doubt, discount this in public - and who cares? - since from
the very start I said a court should, and i hope will, decide the issue, and
while that may not be acceptable to you, since you cannot seem to
acknowledge even such a force as the law of your own land in your
peculations, it will nevertheless be enforceable unto you
As I said, its your mouth...
Phil Innes
J.D. Walker
> "Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:bpmom357e797h21m3...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:26:12 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> to that degree of humanity you profess, along with the fake vicar,
>> Fake? He's legally an ordained man of the cloth. Are you libeling
>> him?
>
> he is a fatuous inveigler of dirt intent on causing dissention by
> irresponsible and crudely speculatory commentaries, which have nothing to do
> with 'reverence' to any known subject he himself has raised - perhaps he is
> a dirty vicar, or no vicar at all? i don't know except by his own behavior
> here
I forgive you poor P Innes. You know not what you do.
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"
Mike Murray
wrote:
>so many of your colleagues seem to use remailers for their posts - i am
>amazed it has escaped your attention, though not your wit, which i do not
>credit to be honest enough to notice the fact, or why they do it
Seems to me the *vast* majority of remailer type posts are from those
who generally support *you're* take on the issue. At any rate, a mere
anonymouse is just that, an anonymouse. There may be good reasons for
it, or it may be just timidity. Posting under someone else's name is
what I've always inveighed against.
>and acually, i do not even credit you to acknowledge the fact if you did ken
>their 'orientation', since here you are as lead guy, and as slimely a
>character as could be!
Do you mean "slimy"? Or is my lack of knowledge of archaic English
hindering my understanding?
>There are so many things which you do not suspect which are not susceptible
>to your flip judgmental self-presentation on usenet, but which are to do
>with irresponsible expressions, not supported under the law
Gimme an example or two. Oh.... you can't? You just posture and
threaten? OK.
>You will, no doubt, discount this in public - and who cares?
Well, you obviously do, since you keep fulminating on it.
>- since from
>the very start I said a court should, and i hope will, decide the issue, and
>while that may not be acceptable to you, since you cannot seem to
>acknowledge even such a force as the law of your own land in your
>peculations,
AFAIK, most of the stuff to which you've vehemently objected has been
satirization of arguments advocating derailing the investigation
entirely. Or, haven't you noticed?
> it will nevertheless be enforceable unto you
Still seem threatening, Phil. Are you threatening?
Chess One
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:26:12 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You are not brave enough to cite what causes people to say the f word,
>
> ??
>
>>to that degree of humanity you profess, along with the fake vicar,
>
> Fake? He's legally an ordained man of the cloth. Are you libeling
> him?
what sort of cloth, a tea-cloth? he is just another Brennan clone, currently
into talking about other people's dicks - but there you go! - that's all
some of these people know ;)))
and as for yourself, you don't write about chess either - and showed up here
with the rest of the crew to do your thing - which you yourself are
prosecutor judge and jury thereof - why continue to pretend to ask
'questions', you already know everything
you, and these folks now joined by hjerry spinrad, exist here because you
want to quash all real discussion and have things go your own strange little
way
you boys all have fun together, okay? don't tell me what happens
Phil Innes
Chess One
>>> Yeah, that would keep people from finding out about how offensive the
>>> FSS actually was, wouldn't it? That way people would not get as irate
>>> about it.
>
>>Not at all - anyone who suffered a year of obscene posts would already
>>know - those people who did not could trust the opinion of this community
>>of
>>poster <right?>
>
> Right. With journalists such as P Innes reporting on it. Right. The
> Truth would out. NOT.
MURRAY CONFESSES ALL
No Murray. That is not what I wrote. I said that anyone who have been here a
year or two - and you haven't - already knows. But you actually advocate FOR
open circulation of the obscene FSS material! Of course you do - because
that is what you get off on - you hardly write about anything else!
That you have some spin on what you do is belied by your actions.
>>As for 'irate' is that actually you personally want?
>
> Oh, no, Phil. I want people to be gentle and understanding and just
> not think or talk about the nice stuff the FSS spewed out.
In other words, Murray //does// want people to become irate over obscene
writing. Here is his coy admission - though this is such a dishonest writer
he can't just say yes straight out. Murray is publicly stating he wants
people to become upset about his favorite target author.
---
> Oh, but Phil, you were objecting to *links* to the stuff you want to
> hide from. The links aren't also obscene, are they? The just
> provide a path to something you're even more afraid of: evidence.
They were /not/ links, they were re-posted texts directly into this
newsgroup
> And P Innes want to protect all these gentle people from the nasty
I talked about standards of deceny in chess - and MIKE MURRAY actually
advocates for the opposite! He wants to repeat and //amplify// varieties of
obscene suggestions in public, while accusing someone of being their author.
That is his role here - and he pretends it is not - or he cares for
something else - whereas by his actions we see he exists for nothing else
but to run a kangaroo court, and PROMOTE such material. Meanwhile rubbishing
all who say otherwise. This message from him admits his own orientation.
> things that were said, things so offensive, he wants to cover them up.
> Keep a lid on it, Phil, that's the ticket. Damper down the outrage.
> Maybe you'll get some nice interviews out of it.
Why don't you keep your disgusting opinions to yourself? You have nothing to
do with social standards, go back to the talking dicks, and write what you
know about. Don't tell me, I ain't interested.
You are the outrage, Murray. See if you can damper down your own
'enthusiasm' for more obscenity and accusations, then! Then maybe someone
would take your unasked for advice seriously.
Phil Innes
J.D. Walker
> "Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:bpmom357e797h21m3...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:26:12 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You are not brave enough to cite what causes people to say the f word,
>> ??
>>
>>> to that degree of humanity you profess, along with the fake vicar,
>> Fake? He's legally an ordained man of the cloth. Are you libeling
>> him?
>
> what sort of cloth, a tea-cloth? he is just another Brennan clone, currently
> into talking about other people's dicks - but there you go! - that's all
> some of these people know ;)))
>
Phil, I am refraining from rejoining this mud-slinging activity. There
are better things to do in life.
--
Cordially,
Chess One
<marcusw...@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:656a687f-4318-4cda...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 11:03 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I see several communications here today which are offensive to decency.
> Phil Innes,
>
> So, your side is getting your asses kicked in a civil chess war, and
> you want peace. Offer rejceted. We intend to shut down corporate
> operations with respect to scholastic chess. That is, to protect
> children, we need to halt all scholastic chess activity, nationwide.
>
> Marcus Roberts
Who is 'we', Marcus?
You, a stalking-abusenik, hang-em high Murray, plus the Reverend Dick? O!
and Jerry Spinrad, plus a line-judge. Well, with such a crew, how can you
fail?
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
> MURRAY CONFESSES ALL
> MIKE MURRAY...wants to repeat and //amplify// varieties of
>obscene suggestions in public, while accusing someone of being their author.
>he exists for nothing else
>but to run a kangaroo court, and PROMOTE such material....
>You are the outrage, Murray.
Oh, by the way, a belated Merry Christmas, to you, Phil. And a joyous
and fulfilling New Year.
The Historian
> Phil, I am refraining from rejoining this mud-slinging activity. There
> are better things to do in life.
Well said.
Chess One
"J.D. Walker" <j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AaWdnZYnibRK_O_a...@comcast.com...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>> news:bpmom357e797h21m3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:26:12 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are not brave enough to cite what causes people to say the f word,
>>> ??
>>>
>>>> to that degree of humanity you profess, along with the fake vicar,
>>> Fake? He's legally an ordained man of the cloth. Are you libeling
>>> him?
>>
>> what sort of cloth, a tea-cloth? he is just another Brennan clone,
>> currently into talking about other people's dicks - but there you go! -
>> that's all some of these people know ;)))
>>
>
> Phil, I am refraining from rejoining this mud-slinging activity. There
> are better things to do in life.
> --
You mean, /now/ you are, vicar?
;)
PI
J.D. Walker
--
marcusw...@hughes.net
> >news:AaWdnZYnibRK_O_a...@comcast.com...
> >> Chess One wrote:
> >>>news:bpmom357e797h21m3...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:26:12 -0500, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> You are not brave enough to cite what causes people to say the f word,
> >>>> ??
>
> >>>>> to that degree of humanity you profess, along with the fake vicar,
> >>>> Fake? He's legally an ordained man of the cloth. Are you libeling
> >>>> him?
> >>> what sort of cloth, a tea-cloth? he is just another Brennan clone,
> >>> currently into talking about other people's dicks - but there you go! -
> >>> that's all some of these people know ;)))
>
> >> Phil, I am refraining from rejoining this mud-slinging activity. There
> >> are better things to do in life.
> >> --
>
> > You mean, /now/ you are, vicar?
>
> > ;)
>
> > PI
>
> >> Cordially,
> >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>
> >> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
> >> Report?"
>
> If you need a "now" to understand, you may have one.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>
> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, if I am the permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE,
Rev. Walker can be comissioned
the honorary Vicar of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE. It comes with
tickets to the FIDE General
Assembly in Dresden, but somebody might try to kill our players, so we
have need for a Vicar.
If you see anyone peeing in a cup, you need to pull out a bible, and
start preaching!
Marcus roberts
J.D. Walker
I am sorry Marcus. I have no credentials as a vicar. That is Phil's
invention. He would have to explain as I have no idea why he uses that
term. Thank you for the offer though. If I make it down to St. Kitts
and Nevis, I shall try to come prepared.
marcusw...@hughes.net
Phil is trying to show off his vocabulary. However, the term is
appropriate for FIDE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar
I am head of state for Chess on St Kitts and Nevis (we are small). As
bizzare as this sounds, FIDE sends
its own diplomatic missions and exchanges informal ties - usually
between Europe and Asia.
It is quite formal. FIDE give bribe money to send a diplomatic mission
to a wedding (such as FIDE Secrtary General Leong)
We in North America are considered coboys, so by using my inhert
auhtoirty
to comission preists for our FIDE goverment, I can comission a Vicar.
It tends to piss off FIDE. I enjoy it, because it usually casues them
to translate
what I write into Russian.
The issue is that you aren't cathlotic. But, with all of this murder
and slave trading in FIDE, I don't
think that the lord will mind if I make a Chistian a Vicar.
"In the broadest sense, a vicar (from the Latin vicarius) is anyone
acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior (compare
"vicarious"). In this sense, the title is comparable to lieutenant.
Usually the title appears in a number of Christian ecclesiastical
contexts, but in the Holy Roman Empire a local representative of the
emperor, perhaps an archduke, might be styled "vicar".
"Representative" is the best definition of this word.
Contents [hide]
1 Catholic Church
2 Eastern Orthodox
3 Anglican
3.1 See also
3.2 Ulster
4 Notable vicars
5 Lutheran usage
6 External links"
So, I can make you a Vicar, but I don't think anyone will care that
much unless you happen to be around the FIDE General Assembly in
session. Then, we really do need some
divine guidence. Call me up if you are in Dresden, Germany for the
Chess Olympaids in November of 2008. I'll give you a comission.
My life has been threatened if I appear in the FIDE General Assembly
by Paul Truong. Given these death threats are the subject of the
report you ask about, Vicar is actually
a pretty damn good use of vocabulary by Phil.
So, you do have the credentials. I just gave them to you!
Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE
marcusw...@hughes.net
> <marcuswrobe...@hughes.net> wrote in message
We seems to be the ever growing number of people working to bankrupt
the US Chess Federation, to force a revolution, and to stop Paul
Truoung. I guess the
best person to ask that would be Thomas Jefferson ("We the
people.....") We want a new chess federation!
So, WE is the same set of people in the declaration of independence of
the United States.
Is that good enough for you?
Marcus Roberts
J.D. Walker
That is interesting Marcus. But I actually do have credentials to
minister for what I believe in. It is no secret. Check the Google
archives if you wish. Unfortunately for the Vicar idea, I am not a
Christian. The religion that I subscribe to allows its ministers wide
latitude in selecting titles. Reverend suits me fine.
And what do I believe? I am glad you asked! "Do that which is right!"
To me this implies that we adherents are intelligent creatures capable
of evaluating our circumstances and making judgments which hopefully
will lead to right actions. When we repeatedly exercise this stratagem,
we hone our ability to do the same in the future. It is much like a
chess player trying to improve their skill at chess. Perhaps that is
one reason it appeals to me.
So, let me wish that your right actions meet with great success, and the
others fall by the wayside.
Happy New Year to you and everyone.
The Historian
> Phil is trying to show off his vocabulary.
My neighbor's dog likes to roll in his own 'leavings' and trot back to
his owner with his tail wagging. That's the closest parallel to P
Innes' use of English.
Chess One
<marcusw...@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:9a9b017c-0600-4014...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> You, a stalking-abusenik, hang-em high Murray, plus the Reverend Dick? O!
> and Jerry Spinrad, plus a line-judge. Well, with such a crew, how can you
> fail?
>
> Phil Innes
We seems to be the ever growing number of people working to bankrupt
the US Chess Federation, to force a revolution, and to stop Paul
Truoung.
**What exactly are you stopping him from doing that he said he intends to do
at USCF? Even Sam Sloan wrote of the televised board meeting, that Truong
was the only person to consistently address a topic - and that was the
practical one to get the best bang from your marketing buck. Is that it?
I guess the
best person to ask that would be Thomas Jefferson ("We the
people.....") We want a new chess federation!
So, WE is the same set of people in the declaration of independence of
the United States.
Is that good enough for you?
**No. What is it you want a chess federation, old or new, to actually do?
You see, it is very often the case that revolutionaries with wondrous causes
turn out to be no better than the evil-doers currently in government, and
indeed, sometimes they are far worse! Now, whether that is the result of
naivete, or merely a dress of disguise for raw ambition, is uncertain.
**And indeed, US Chess suffers from a severe personality disorder - that is,
//everything// is about personalities - and there are no objective
independent standards or any momentum of organisation building as one might
think fitting the profile of a mature entity.
**So... I am sorry I cannot subscribe to this Dr. Zhivago Red&White
revolution, nomatter how many kulaks get off on blood lust - in the book it
is just a matter of soldiers... and other soldiers, and nothing was revealed
from all that vast whiteness.
Phil Innes
---
Marcus Roberts
Chess One
"The Historian" <neil.the...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:94659124-e0f3-4d3b...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
What an idiotic conversation! Here /don't panic!/ Marcus engages a chief
abusenik, ad hominist and stalker, not just of chess theads but of all
groups he attends - and their discussion resolves around the usual,
figurative and literal shit.
This is why these characters are indecent. It is not the use of the word
'fuck' or any other warm terms to resent what they do. It is there moronic
plaints and character assassinations against all who know, and care, more
than they do. Sometimes re-mailer support is achieved by non-Chirstian
'reverends', line judges who don't know legal-Latin, listers of 24 devices
by which the constitution is suspended, and Jerry Spinrad for Chesscafe.
pfft!
What is indecent is the lack of address to corporate, impartial standards of
discussion of chess management, rather than ego management. These people do
not subscribe to that, and are pushed to even ascribe to the rule of law
rather than kangaroo courts.
They have as a group destroyed USCF's own forum, as must therefore do what
they do here. And what they do is resent. They whine so very much, while
professing not to even care!
A pretty good racket for rentier chess paratchiks, but an utterly inane
display gauranteeing each and every one of them that no sensible person who
cares for chess will ever have to do with them again.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Sometimes re-mailer support is achieved by non-Chirstian
>'reverends',
What do you mean by "re-mailer support" ?
>...listers of 24 devices by which the constitution is suspended,
I've tried hard to make sense of this phrase. Any connection between
a suspension of the Constitution and a satirical list (which, BTW, is
up to 44 items now) of invalid or fallacious arguments seems hard to
document. Hmmmm. Well, it *is* The List of the Blind Monkey", and
The Shrub kinda looks like a monkey, and he's come close to suspending
the Constitution and.... By golly, Phil, that's deep! Highly
symbolic. Much richer than your usual twaddle.
The exposure to the satirical side is doing wonders for your
intellect. Or, perhaps, it's the prayers of the Reverend Walker.
Anyway, nice. Keep it up. It's good to see personal growth in a
person of your age.
The Historian
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:55:40 -0500, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Sometimes re-mailer support is achieved by non-Chirstian
> >'reverends',
>
> What do you mean by "re-mailer support" ?
Mike, while you are at it, could you find out what's meant by a "non-
Chirstian"?