The Channing Four

[parrt...@cs.com]

THE POLITICS BEHIND THE CHANNING FOUR

By Larry Parr

Fascinating politics lie behind the early
announcement of a ticket for the Executive Board
elections in 2007.

The ticket consists of celebrated Grandmaster
Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, Dr. Mikhail Korenman and
Randy Bauer. Bill Goichberg has indicated privately
that he will support and, indeed, work for the ticket.
My sources tell me that Joel Channing, the wealthy
Florida real estate developer and current USCF
Executive Board member, will finance the campaign,
promising an essentially open checkbook in return for
his becoming president, tossing over Mr. Goichberg.

A lot has been happening behind the scenes, and
the ticket is in part based on the fear that Sam Sloan
will win next year unless stopped by overwhelming
financial resources brought to bear.

One source states that Mr. Goichberg will be
telephoning potential candidates, offering inducements
to have them step aside for the announced Polgar
ticket. Several candidates from California and points
west of the Mississippi will be asked to defer their
candidacies in return for future support and,
possibly, special favors from the USCF office and
Chess Life.

A secondhand source, very close to one candidate
running on the ticket, told me privately that there is
NO INTENTION of permitting Channing to purchase the
presidency by supporting the ticket financially.
(Putting the knife into Channing by his allies will be
the first political doublecross after the elections,
if the ticket is successful.) Goichberg is understood
to be a carcass - a cross between a discarded appendix
and chopped liver - though he currently hopes that he
will carry on. If successful, the ticket members will
vote to elect GM Susan Polgar as the next USCF
president. Period.

Another source stated that Goichberg has, in
truth, little chance of convincing other candidates to
bow out and that there will be a fairly crowded field.
The anti-Sloan strategy may cause many voters to cast
their ballots for Sam for fear that a clique of
insiders is attempting a coup. Sam will trumpet
ethics, his successful discombobulation of Robert
Tanner, and the need for transparency against moneyed
insiders. It may prove a successful strategy against
heavy-handed political tactics.

Still, the announced candidates must be regarded
as the hot runners at this point. If the election
were held this Friday, all four would win thanks to
heavy support from the schlolastics community.

The factors favoring the ticket are lavish
financing from Mr. Channing, GM Polgar's name
recognition and favorable image, and the push by
scholastic types to assume control of the Federation
and fundamentally change both Chess Life and the
direction of the USCF.

At first reckoning, there is no roadblock - no
pothole along the political highway - that can upend
this electoral juggernaut. Yet excepting Dr.
Korenman, each member of the ticket has made quite a
few enemies, and the likelihood of a fairly crowded
field will discourage ticket voting. Too, the enmity
between several ticket members and Sam Sloan will
ensure a polemical battle royal.

Several members of the traditional organizer
class that has long controlled the USCF will campaign
against the ticket. These people believe that those
representing scholastic interests are making a major
push to transform the USCF into, when all is said and
done, an organization of students and their chess
coaches. They fear that the old structure that was
the Federation will go the way of the defunct
Manhattan Chess Club, a traditional haunt of New York
players, that was devoured hook, line and library by
the Chess in Schools program.

In the days before OMOV - one man, one vote -
the opposition of the organizer class would have been
decisive in holding off the Polgar ticket. Not so
today. The chances are at best even for the
organizers, assuming they can unite and find
financing. Still, if one or two members of the ticket
fail to win election, then the day of scholastic
reckoning will be put off for a few more years.

One senses that the combative nature of certain
ticket members will alienate some voters. Randy
Bauer, who is quickly becoming a traditional and
vicious candidate in the Robert Tanner mode, enjoys
his slings and arrows, though his chess political
career thus far suggests that he outrages fortune.
Paul Truong has conducted numerous long and
acrimonious debates in which, by and large, he has
been on the side of the angels, but the point here is
that these battles have given him political baggage,
some of which GM Polgar is also lugging around.

My prediction at this point: Polgar and
Korenman will win; Truong and Bauer will make new
enemies and rekindle old animosities. They might go down.

Sam Sloan? He is in a far stronger political
position than ever before. He will be able to point
to numerous achievements in ferreting out corruption.
His censure at the precise moment that he brought down
Robert Tanner, one of the Board insiders, will get
played again and again - but by Sam. He will display
his censure - quite rightly, too - as a Badge of
Honour. He will note - quite truthfully, too - that
he paid a price for exposing corruption on the part of
a Board member who has NOT been censured or condemned
by his fellow Board members, even though forced to
resign in disgrace for serial cheating and, yes,
lying. Many voters will note the double standard and
the arrant hypocrisy.

In spite of the above, one figures that Sam will
get squeezed off the Board in the next election by the
Channing-financed ticket and by those traditional
organizers who will use guerrilla tactics in depleting
Channing's combat strength. Sam's vote total will be
respectable, but no better than that because political
physics next year will be written in unfavorable
formulae. Sam and other points of intellectual and
Caissic light will get sucked into an electoral black hole.

Every effort will be made by Bill Goichberg
and other insiders to discourage candidacies that
could muddy the effort to defeat Sam Sloan and to
elect the Channing Four. But the push to restrict
candidacies will fail because three of the four ticket
members have made enemies and because many deadenders
will man the barricades against a scholastic takeover
of the Federation.

Deadenders? Do they have any chance?

Don't forget that the anti-American insurgency
in Iraq was initially written off as comprised of a
few hundred deadenders. Sometimes, after deadenders
get organized, they outwork, outfight and outthink
members of conventional forces. Their numbers grow, too.

As in Iraq, one figures that political IEDs
will take a partial toll among the Channing Four.
Indeed, two of the four - but no more.

[politi...@gmail.com]

Maybe we can get Chessdon to confirm authorship and authenticity.

He LOVES ethics!

[politi...@gmail.com]

parrt...@cs.com wrote:

<<My prediction at this point: Polgar and Korenman will win; Truong
and Bauer will make new enemies and rekindle old animosities. They
might go down. >>

Sam Sloan might go down, too.

Unfortunately, Norman Whitaker is no available for confirmation.

[Chess One]

<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1165475577....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> THE POLITICS BEHIND THE CHANNING FOUR
>
> By Larry Parr
>
>
> Fascinating politics lie behind the early
> announcement of a ticket for the Executive Board
> elections in 2007.

Let us inspect this analysis by Larry Parr by another perspective, which
will either add or subtract to his own comments, but fill in an overall
appreciation of what looks likely to be a major shift in USCF.

> The ticket consists of celebrated Grandmaster
> Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, Dr. Mikhail Korenman and
> Randy Bauer. Bill Goichberg has indicated privately
> that he will support and, indeed, work for the ticket.
> My sources tell me that Joel Channing, the wealthy
> Florida real estate developer and current USCF
> Executive Board member, will finance the campaign,
> promising an essentially open checkbook in return for
> his becoming president, tossing over Mr. Goichberg.

While this may be a contributing factor in support of the 4, Polgar is
probably most exempt from a need for financial support, since she already
has a powerful and interactive communications network in place.

> A lot has been happening behind the scenes, and
> the ticket is in part based on the fear that Sam Sloan
> will win next year unless stopped by overwhelming
> financial resources brought to bear.
>
> One source states that Mr. Goichberg will be
> telephoning potential candidates, offering inducements
> to have them step aside for the announced Polgar
> ticket. Several candidates from California and points
> west of the Mississippi will be asked to defer their
> candidacies in return for future support and,
> possibly, special favors from the USCF office and
> Chess Life.

While that may have some impact on the 4, the worth of it for Polgar itself
may be doubled-edged.

> A secondhand source, very close to one candidate
> running on the ticket, told me privately that there is
> NO INTENTION of permitting Channing to purchase the
> presidency by supporting the ticket financially.
> (Putting the knife into Channing by his allies will be
> the first political doublecross after the elections,
> if the ticket is successful.) Goichberg is understood
> to be a carcass - a cross between a discarded appendix
> and chopped liver - though he currently hopes that he
> will carry on. If successful, the ticket members will
> vote to elect GM Susan Polgar as the next USCF
> president. Period.

Yes, I also think that's the size of it.

> Another source stated that Goichberg has, in
> truth, little chance of convincing other candidates to
> bow out and that there will be a fairly crowded field.
> The anti-Sloan strategy may cause many voters to cast
> their ballots for Sam for fear that a clique of
> insiders is attempting a coup. Sam will trumpet
> ethics, his successful discombobulation of Robert
> Tanner, and the need for transparency against moneyed
> insiders. It may prove a successful strategy against
> heavy-handed political tactics.

Cleaning the stables? Someone had to do it, though it is a somewhat
indiscriminate cleaning, so it seems to me, and he is too personally wrapped
in personality matters to cry foul that other people resent his own [fairly
and unfairly]. I had rather hoped that he would escape this factor, and, by
weight of office, grow up! Whatever airing he has achieved can so easily
devolve into re-writing the past, a habit of politicians who back into the
future, and whose use is up.

> Still, the announced candidates must be regarded
> as the hot runners at this point. If the election
> were held this Friday, all four would win thanks to
> heavy support from the schlolastics community.
>
> The factors favoring the ticket are lavish
> financing from Mr. Channing, GM Polgar's name
> recognition and favorable image, and the push by
> scholastic types to assume control of the Federation
> and fundamentally change both Chess Life and the
> direction of the USCF.
>
> At first reckoning, there is no roadblock - no
> pothole along the political highway - that can upend
> this electoral juggernaut. Yet excepting Dr.
> Korenman, each member of the ticket has made quite a
> few enemies, and the likelihood of a fairly crowded
> field will discourage ticket voting.

Mikhail is indeed a very sober fellow, unemphatic but very sound. There are
not many people who will stand around with you for an hour and a half before
breakfast and talk pedagogics. In plainer language, process of education.
While the Polgar chess curriculum has achieved large success recently around
the world, it is still a million miles from engageing main-stream
educational concerns, and allying with Dr. K. will be just the ticket to
take it the [huge] next step.

> Too, the enmity
> between several ticket members and Sam Sloan will
> ensure a polemical battle royal.

<....snips....>

> My prediction at this point: Polgar and
> Korenman will win; Truong and Bauer will make new
> enemies and rekindle old animosities. They might go down.

First to praise Randy Bauer for something - he is willing to show up in
public and argue his point, not just state it, but pursue it with some
conviction and determination - I would only wish his point were sharper! But
rather than admit faint praise, he does not suffer from fear-of-the-public,
which practically all other members of the board do, and as direct result of
not-testing their precious opinions, are more-or-less intelligent thereby.
What 'our' Randy needs to do is not run on his record of the past, but run
on a program for the future. That, IMO, will decide his fate.

Paul Truong has recently written widely enough so that his opinions can be
seen to expand beyond the immediate realm of Susan Polgar Foundation and
into the promotion of larger sections of the chess scene. While his
inclusion as perhaps the best chess publicist in the USA [no competition
really] will provide the board with a strong stimulus not to sit in its
cave - I am less sure that he is well placed to /pursue/ marketing of chess
as a non-Executive person, but in any case, would need to ally with a
competent and very able staff director to do the same for USCF as he has
done for SPF.

<...>

> In spite of the above, one figures that Sam will
> get squeezed off the Board in the next election by the
> Channing-financed ticket and by those traditional
> organizers who will use guerrilla tactics in depleting
> Channing's combat strength. Sam's vote total will be
> respectable, but no better than that because political
> physics next year will be written in unfavorable
> formulae. Sam and other points of intellectual and
> Caissic light will get sucked into an electoral black hole.

He has not shown much other feature than an ability to bite people in the
arse. In most cases they definitely needed biting, but this alone won't play
well in an election. On the down side, and while I am personally very
liberal in terms of personal expression [as liberal as the law itself!],
that is no endorsement of his qualities to attend to other matters.

In our society the law describes a minimum level of acceptable behavior, yet
our society suffers increasingly from a need to rise above that minimum
standard, which is everywhere abbreached, and here and there invaded
entirely. Specifically, in the realm of scholastics and in both sexual
predatorial activity against children, and in offering affront to the
gender, a higher level than minimum is strongly indicated. I do not think
he will gain sufficient trust on either point to allow him to engage with
the subject and achieve the confidence of others.

Of course, I have this reservation about other USCF officials too, and it is
no singularity.

> Every effort will be made by Bill Goichberg
> and other insiders to discourage candidacies that
> could muddy the effort to defeat Sam Sloan and to
> elect the Channing Four. But the push to restrict
> candidacies will fail because three of the four ticket
> members have made enemies and because many deadenders
> will man the barricades against a scholastic takeover
> of the Federation.
>
> Deadenders? Do they have any chance?

This is an important point about 'the salt', the inert mass who resist
change on principle. Quite how much of it survives is a good guess, but a
substantial amount seems present. It s most recent manifestation was the
complete and utter denial of any responsibility at USCF ratings department,
or its supervision, of the Tanner affair. Although people are paid, they are
not paid for competent response - and shining a light at that subject will
occassion a big fight - but, IMO, in terms of picking your battles, a very
useful engagement.

> Don't forget that the anti-American insurgency
> in Iraq was initially written off as comprised of a
> few hundred deadenders. Sometimes, after deadenders
> get organized, they outwork, outfight and outthink
> members of conventional forces. Their numbers grow, too.
>
> As in Iraq, one figures that political IEDs
> will take a partial toll among the Channing Four.
> Indeed, two of the four - but no more.

Since Larry Parr has concentrated so much on what is almost a single plank
campaign, scholastics, I should like to ask some questions about it, which
stand independent of these appreciations of individual merit to administer
it. I'll do that in a new thread. I have two concerns, turnover, and also
activity level.

I have disagreed with Larry Parr on several issues here, but I think not so
much at 180 degrees, though sometimes come at things at right angles to his
own perspectives. Whatever the result of this conversation, the result of
the election will be enormous for the USCF, and indeed, as an outsider to
its recent 'activities' I am with Yamamoto, though not in a rueful sense, in
speaking of "waking the sleeping giant' of world chess.

Phil Innes

[RSH...@aol.com]

Very excellent post, keen insight. Thank you, Larry Parr.

Old Haasie

[flyin...@email.com]

RSH...@aol.com wrote:
> Very excellent post, keen insight. Thank you, Larry Parr.
>
> Old Haasie

Thankee Larry, for them's analosis of this here electorial. Meaty
tatoes. Y'all about th' onliest poster here that give me the hard-on
that won't quit and I thankee for't. Read all you's words, though you
be a prevert jus' like you twin Sammi.

Ancient Haasie

[Randy Bauer]

parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> THE POLITICS BEHIND THE CHANNING FOUR
>
> By Larry Parr
>
>
> Fascinating politics lie behind the early
> announcement of a ticket for the Executive Board
> elections in 2007.
>
> The ticket consists of celebrated Grandmaster
> Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, Dr. Mikhail Korenman and
> Randy Bauer. Bill Goichberg has indicated privately
> that he will support and, indeed, work for the ticket.
> My sources tell me that Joel Channing, the wealthy
> Florida real estate developer and current USCF
> Executive Board member, will finance the campaign,
> promising an essentially open checkbook in return for
> his becoming president, tossing over Mr. Goichberg.

That is not how things have unfolded. I talked with Susan a couple
weeks back and urged her to run -- I am 99% certain she will be elected
and 100% certain she will be an outstanding addition. She is smart,
energetic, and committed to growing chess activity in the US. I agreed
to run but also said that I didn't want to turn this into a race of
competing slates.

I think that is divisive and did not serve the USCF well in the last
general election. I pledge to support any qualified, capable candidate
who is committed to working with all members of the Board in a
collegial, constructive manner. I think Don Schultz may run, and I
would support his candidacy for the same reason -- while we were
supporting opposing slates last time, he and I worked together on many
issues, and I know he cares about and is committed to constructive
change for the USCF.

While I think that Joel supports my candidacy (and probably Susan's as
well) he in no way has promised financial support, nor has he been the
one pushing this particular group of candidates. There also is no fait
accompli regarding the presidency, at least as I know it. I think Bill
has done a good job and wouldn't/haven't make any promises on support
of any particular person.

>
> A lot has been happening behind the scenes, and
> the ticket is in part based on the fear that Sam Sloan
> will win next year unless stopped by overwhelming
> financial resources brought to bear.

It's not my fear. I think Sam was elected last time because there
wasn't much interest in the one year positions (for one thing the Board
majority wasn't going to be impacted). I think Sam has provided
abundant evidence that his "bull in the china shop" approach isn't
suited to the Executive Board, and I think the membership will
recognize that, regardless of the financial resources brough to bear.
I know I've finished far ahead of him in both of the races we've
contested, and I see no reason for that not to be the case this time.

>
> One source states that Mr. Goichberg will be
> telephoning potential candidates, offering inducements
> to have them step aside for the announced Polgar
> ticket. Several candidates from California and points
> west of the Mississippi will be asked to defer their
> candidacies in return for future support and,
> possibly, special favors from the USCF office and
> Chess Life.
>
> A secondhand source, very close to one candidate
> running on the ticket, told me privately that there is
> NO INTENTION of permitting Channing to purchase the
> presidency by supporting the ticket financially.
> (Putting the knife into Channing by his allies will be
> the first political doublecross after the elections,
> if the ticket is successful.) Goichberg is understood
> to be a carcass - a cross between a discarded appendix
> and chopped liver - though he currently hopes that he
> will carry on. If successful, the ticket members will
> vote to elect GM Susan Polgar as the next USCF
> president. Period.

Fiction, at least as I know it. I like and respect Bill, Joel, and
Susan, and the "knifing" etc. you described is not contemplated or
expected.

>
> Another source stated that Goichberg has, in
> truth, little chance of convincing other candidates to
> bow out and that there will be a fairly crowded field.
> The anti-Sloan strategy may cause many voters to cast
> their ballots for Sam for fear that a clique of
> insiders is attempting a coup. Sam will trumpet
> ethics, his successful discombobulation of Robert
> Tanner, and the need for transparency against moneyed
> insiders. It may prove a successful strategy against
> heavy-handed political tactics.

I plan to talk about finance -- ya know, the fact that the Board I was
on balanced the budget -- member service, and the need for the Board to
be able to work together. Sam Sloan trumpeting ethics is delicious
irony for one who had his securities license yanked and... well, you
know.

Randy Bauer

[Randy Bauer]

Chess One wrote:

> First to praise Randy Bauer for something - he is willing to show up in
> public and argue his point, not just state it, but pursue it with some
> conviction and determination - I would only wish his point were sharper! But
> rather than admit faint praise, he does not suffer from fear-of-the-public,
> which practically all other members of the board do, and as direct result of
> not-testing their precious opinions, are more-or-less intelligent thereby.
> What 'our' Randy needs to do is not run on his record of the past, but run
> on a program for the future. That, IMO, will decide his fate.

First, thanks to Phil for pointing out that I have been, even while on
the Board, willing to discuss and debate on RGCP. My time here has
been limited somewhat of late, because I think the fakes and trolls
have severely reduced the opportunity to have fair discussion of
issues. While I don't support Sam Sloan's candidacy or position on the
Executive Board of the USCF, I also do not support the fake postings
that he has been subjected to for the past year or so.

As to Phil's point about the future rather than the past as the focus,
I agree -- fair enough. I plan to run on strict adherance to financial
responsibility, improvement in member service (I think EVERY employee,
from the Executive Director on down, should have a performance plan
that is developed and reviewed on an annual basis and focused on their
contribution to membership service), better marketing of chess in this
country, and a firm foundation for the things the USCF should be
expected to provide -- national championships, support for state and
local affiliates, an honest, accurate and timely rating system, and top
notch magazines and other forms of communications with its members.

Randy Bauer

[Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"]

>
> I plan to talk about finance -- ya know, the fact that the Board I was
> on balanced the budget -- member service, and the need for the Board to
> be able to work together. Sam Sloan trumpeting ethics is delicious
> irony for one who had his securities license yanked and... well, you
> know.

Why did USCF authorize the hiring of a relative of a board member less than
two years after the board member's tenure was finished?

Rule 2 says they can't do that, yet they did. Why?

--
Ray Gordon, Author
The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon Blog:
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com

[Chess One]

"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165709796.7...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

O! This is rare, after reading your comments Randy, I was about to ask, 'how
are you going to actually do what you aspire to' which is a fair question to
any politician! But you did it!

I remember a certain board-aspirant in a past election talking of greater
transparency at very great length, but he wasn't able to say exactly how he
would go about achieving it. But in this message you engage the topic of
'how', which is, IMO, of much greater weight than lots of 'whats'.

Elsewhere I just criticised both the current board and Sam Sloan for mixing
up a censure of Sloan for unwarranted speculations with this other topic of
revealing rating corruption - and said that the /apparent/ effect would be
to now view Sloan as being censured for outing the corruption, rather than
as the omnibus criticism it was intended to be. This rather clouds a more
important issue, IMO:-

What has still not really been answered from USCF's camp is how the accussed
got it through the ratings department in the first place, and then, without
apparent invigilation, the accused was awarded a life-title. Questions on
the extent of this problem have been, of course, dismissed, which is the
exact opposite of calling for performance measurements!

While I do not expect you to answer those specific questions from other than
general knowledge, or at all, I do admit a liking for this idea of yours of
asking department heads [and 'on down'] to have some performance criterion
for their pay - which I should like to call that by the normative phrase
'competency testing'.

> better marketing of chess in this
> country,

First time I've heard that in a while. Is there an operations person
currently employed at USCF to do this? If not, or if the person would not
have sufficient experience or competence to do an enhanced task or marketing
as you would wish, would you hire someone to become 'marketing manager'? In
other words, how will you deploy a marketing effort? As someone interested
in marketing, would you neverthless cede the board marketing role to Paul
Truong, a fellow board-aspirant?

Here is an older question which I agreed with Beatriz was important, nay!
crucial! during our interview - how are you going to retain more scholastic
players? The numbers indicate the same number in and out every year,
without significant or even measureable growth over 7 or 8 years [in fact a
skippage of almost all the cheap ticket memberships, as many as 10,000! of
them lost]

In another thread I asked for playing-rate of members, and I don't think
anyone knows the Stats for scholastic players who also cares to write them
here. It seems that 12,000 from 30,000 members conducted at least one rated
game in the past 12 months. So I wondered how many games-in-all they played?
Was it just one weekend tourney a year? Who knows? Can anyone say for those
12,000 what is the average number of games they played, and how many played
less than 10 rated games per year?

I also asked the same about rated-games for scholastic players.

These are two vital statistics to the health of USCF and US chess, so it
seems to me, and I compare them with UK stats from 35 years ago, when UK
chess was about to birth some 20 GMs from its national club system.

I am also writing to a PhD doctorate aspirant on these themes; someone who
lives in a substantially more populated country than USA, and he asks some
similar questions about ratings & membership [which is mostly an American
requirement for rating chess] and chess activity - to wit; what is that
relationship?

If you can help me with these datum I should be obliged, as well as perhaps
engaging us with your opinion on this subject independently as a factor of
the health in US chess.

> and a firm foundation for the things the USCF should be
> expected to provide -- national championships, support for state and
> local affiliates, an honest, accurate and timely rating system, and top
> notch magazines and other forms of communications with its members.

Which of those are money-dependent [in the sense that USCF needs to partner
with other agencies to fund them?]

Cordially, Phil Innes

> Randy Bauer
>

[Vince Hart]

parrt...@cs.com wrote:

>
> Sam Sloan? He is in a far stronger political
> position than ever before. He will be able to point
> to numerous achievements in ferreting out corruption.
> His censure at the precise moment that he brought down
> Robert Tanner, one of the Board insiders, will get
> played again and again - but by Sam. He will display
> his censure - quite rightly, too - as a Badge of
> Honour. He will note - quite truthfully, too - that
> he paid a price for exposing corruption on the part of
> a Board member who has NOT been censured or condemned
> by his fellow Board members, even though forced to
> resign in disgrace for serial cheating and, yes,
> lying. Many voters will note the double standard and
> the arrant hypocrisy.
>

As far as I know, ferreting out Robert Tanner is the only thing Sam has
been right about and he made his complaint before he got on the board.
I figure he can comb the MSA for evidence of ratings fraud without
filling a slot that might be occupied by someone who does not
hallucinate phantom high school students destroying records.

[Randy Bauer]

Actually, I applauded and supported Don Schultz when he provided the
necessary leadership to reinstitute the BINFO system for communication
among the Board. I think the USCF forums are another excellent
opportunity for members and others to interact. It at least has, by
requiring members to post their ID numbers, prevented the spamming and
forgeries that plague this newsgroup.

>
> Elsewhere I just criticised both the current board and Sam Sloan for mixing
> up a censure of Sloan for unwarranted speculations with this other topic of
> revealing rating corruption - and said that the /apparent/ effect would be
> to now view Sloan as being censured for outing the corruption, rather than
> as the omnibus criticism it was intended to be. This rather clouds a more
> important issue, IMO:-

I don't think the issues were connected -- in fact, just about every
Board member was vocal in their belief that Tanner should resign, and I
don't think any of them viewed it as anything other than what it was:
a real failing on Tanner's part and worthy of condemnation.

>
> What has still not really been answered from USCF's camp is how the accussed
> got it through the ratings department in the first place, and then, without
> apparent invigilation, the accused was awarded a life-title. Questions on
> the extent of this problem have been, of course, dismissed, which is the
> exact opposite of calling for performance measurements!

I really don't know the answer to that question. However, in my
professional life, I've learned of people who get away with embezzling
millions of dollars without being detected for long periods of time; my
guess is USCF rating points aren't quite as valuable.

>
> While I do not expect you to answer those specific questions from other than
> general knowledge, or at all, I do admit a liking for this idea of yours of
> asking department heads [and 'on down'] to have some performance criterion
> for their pay - which I should like to call that by the normative phrase
> 'competency testing'.

This was actually instituted in the State of Iowa while I worked there,
and, over time, it created a greater culture of accountability for
results. Mind you, we still had our failings, but there are several
independent observers who praised the overall effort. Somehow, we have
to get back to thinking about the USCF actually achieving things --
concrete things, positive outcomes -- and the staff (and the Board)
should be put in that position of being accountable.

>
> > better marketing of chess in this
> > country,
>
> First time I've heard that in a while. Is there an operations person
> currently employed at USCF to do this? If not, or if the person would not
> have sufficient experience or competence to do an enhanced task or marketing
> as you would wish, would you hire someone to become 'marketing manager'? In
> other words, how will you deploy a marketing effort? As someone interested
> in marketing, would you neverthless cede the board marketing role to Paul
> Truong, a fellow board-aspirant?

I think Susan Polgar has done more to market chess in this country than
any player in a long time. I don't know the percentage of credit Paul
should receive for this, but Susan suggests it is a lot. I would like
her to take on the responsibility for this aspect of the USCF's effort.
I have been a spokesperson for a large organization, and I am
comfortable in that role, but I am not a marketer by trade and would
prefer that others take the lead in this area. Regardless of Susan's
involvement, I think the USCF should be more active in this area.
However, rather than hiring a person, I think outsourcing makes more
sense -- quite frankly, I think there are a variety of professional
services where the current model suggests that entities of the size of
the USCF should outsource those functions that do not coincide with
their core competencies.

>
> Here is an older question which I agreed with Beatriz was important, nay!
> crucial! during our interview - how are you going to retain more scholastic
> players? The numbers indicate the same number in and out every year,
> without significant or even measureable growth over 7 or 8 years [in fact a
> skippage of almost all the cheap ticket memberships, as many as 10,000! of
> them lost]

It's all about providing something that people value, that is unique.
There are areas, such as Internet chess play, where I doubt the USCF is
going to be able to carve out a place from those who are further along.
However, given a strong scholastic presence, there must be
opportunities to continue to involve these players. I was one of those
strong scholastic players who ultimately stayed with the USCF, but the
chess playing world was a lot different then. Quite frankly, I think
the Board needs to dialogue with those who are the members, who may be
interested in paying for the USCF's services given their specific needs
and wants rather than thinking that they always know the answers.
While on the Board I suggested we need much better mechanisms for
collecting feedback from members, and I still believe it is worth the
investment.
>
(snip)

> These are two vital statistics to the health of USCF and US chess, so it
> seems to me, and I compare them with UK stats from 35 years ago, when UK
> chess was about to birth some 20 GMs from its national club system.

That was a unique and very interesting time! At the same time, the US
was developing some strong GMs as well. No doubt, the UK experience
was much better per capita, but there are always countries who are
going to outperform the per capita statistics -- if not, the World Cup
and many Olympic events would be much less interesting than they
generally turn out.

>
> I am also writing to a PhD doctorate aspirant on these themes; someone who
> lives in a substantially more populated country than USA, and he asks some
> similar questions about ratings & membership [which is mostly an American
> requirement for rating chess] and chess activity - to wit; what is that
> relationship?
>
> If you can help me with these datum I should be obliged, as well as perhaps
> engaging us with your opinion on this subject independently as a factor of
> the health in US chess.

It's really not a subject where I have much expertise. I readily admit
that the area where I feel I can benefit the USCF is finance -- I know
how to balance a budget, we balanced the budget while I was on the
Board, I understand that choices have to be made and won't simply rely
on cooked revenue estimates to make the budget work, etc. That said, I
also have been a strong scholastic and adult tournament player as well
as an author so think I can help with general approach in these areas
as well.

>
> > and a firm foundation for the things the USCF should be
> > expected to provide -- national championships, support for state and
> > local affiliates, an honest, accurate and timely rating system, and top
> > notch magazines and other forms of communications with its members.
>
> Which of those are money-dependent [in the sense that USCF needs to partner
> with other agencies to fund them?]

It would be great if the USCF can continue to partner with other
agencies to fund things like national championships, and I think there
is greater opportunity to seek out funding from foundations,
governments, etc., even at the local level. This is an area where I
have some history, and I don't think we do as well as we should. At
the same time, the USCF has to be seen as a mainstream, viable
organization with its finances, market plans, and strategic plans in
place for many of these organizations to take the shot. That is
another area where I think, fundamentally, we have fallen down over the
last decade or so. I would want to work on those, and I would expect,
over the term of being on the EB, to be held accountable for results in
these areas.

I lived through this sort of accountability in the State of Iowa. I
was fortunate to work for a principled leader who instilled this
culture throughout government, and I believe we delivered. Budgets
were balanced for 8 years without raising taxes, and Iowa's tax revenue
as a percentage of personal income went from above to below the
national average. At the same time, K-12 test scores improved,
children with health insurance went up, per capita personal income
surpassed the national average, and employment hit record levels. I
doubt we could do the same/similar in terms of improvement for the
USCF, but I'd like to give it a try.

Cordially, Randy Bauer

>
> Cordially, Phil Innes

[Mike Murray]

On 11 Dec 2006 20:46:45 -0800, "Randy Bauer"
<randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> What has still not really been answered from USCF's camp is how the accussed
>> got it through the ratings department in the first place, and then, without
>> apparent invigilation, the accused was awarded a life-title. Questions on
>> the extent of this problem have been, of course, dismissed, which is the
>> exact opposite of calling for performance measurements!

>I really don't know the answer to that question. However, in my
>professional life, I've learned of people who get away with embezzling
>millions of dollars without being detected for long periods of time; my
>guess is USCF rating points aren't quite as valuable.

Let me offer some observations in defense of the USCF ratings people,
on how Tanner could stay under the radar.

(1) It wasn't like Tanner *only* played in the little closed-circle
events. He played in quite a few normal ones, interspersed with the
closed circle ones.

(2) Evidently, he maintained a mid-level Expert's rating for some time
before beginning the suspicious events. So, it wasn't like he was
jumping multiple classes.

(3) None of the suspect events brought him any prize money or directly
qualified him for anything at the time. The key result the event that
bumped him over 2300, which gave him a 2200 floor under the rules of
the time. After that, collecting games toward the LM title was just
cruising. How many players have performance results well under their
floors? Probably quite a few.

Makes me more impressed at how Sloan and his sources dug into this in
the first place.

[Chess One]

"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1165898805.0...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Actually, I applauded and supported Don Schultz when he provided the
> necessary leadership to reinstitute the BINFO system for communication
> among the Board. I think the USCF forums are another excellent
> opportunity for members and others to interact. It at least has, by
> requiring members to post their ID numbers, prevented the spamming and
> forgeries that plague this newsgroup.

Let me just amplify on some of these themes, and with some other
perspectives, not necessarily head-on ones, but tangential. I will not
introduce new material, but use some news to illustrate points already
raised:-
--------

I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the $10,000 'award',
which is this week's scandal, and also how it was treated at the Nolanland
forum by a moderator - which even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and
offensive abuse of speech.

I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner, which had no
mention at all about an ethics scandal, and its far better psychologically
to pre-empt criticism by admitting a problem, especially since this was yet
another 'award' to insiders.

If it isn't openly admitted, it is safe to assume that nothing at all will
happen to obviate future occurance.

--------

> I think Susan Polgar has done more to market chess in this country than
> any player in a long time. I don't know the percentage of credit Paul
> should receive for this, but Susan suggests it is a lot.

Yes, I think 'a lot' is correct. In fact last year 50 mainstream media
mentions compared with 2 for USCF. That, as my wife says, 'is not nothing.'

--------

> It's all about providing something that people value, that is unique.
> There are areas, such as Internet chess play, where I doubt the USCF is
> going to be able to carve out a place from those who are further along.
> However, given a strong scholastic presence, there must be
> opportunities to continue to involve these players. I was one of those
> strong scholastic players who ultimately stayed with the USCF, but the
> chess playing world was a lot different then. Quite frankly, I think
> the Board needs to dialogue with those who are the members, who may be
> interested in paying for the USCF's services given their specific needs
> and wants rather than thinking that they always know the answers.

the 'old fashioned' sense of 'marketing' was purely analytical, and was
indifferent to result - that is, it was not prescriptive, and the entire
goal was to find where people were spening their money and where people
would spend their money

----

>> These are two vital statistics to the health of USCF and US chess, so it
>> seems to me, and I compare them with UK stats from 35 years ago, when UK
>> chess was about to birth some 20 GMs from its national club system.
>
> That was a unique and very interesting time! At the same time, the US
> was developing some strong GMs as well.

The per capita rate is interesting, and if extrapolated here would have
produced 80 GMs. I think actual production in the same period was for
home-grown GMs, UK = 20, USA = 2. Meanwhile Poland has produced 20 GMs from
an even smaller pop. than UK since the wall came down.

What is peculiar about these statistics is that there is rarely any
curiosity about them - and they are most often met with passive-aggressive
responses, like 'what's your point' as if people were too thick to notice
the scale of the diference, or resented feeling that something was at all
amiss here in sleepy USA.

No one seems interested in learning anything about the UK club system, or
whatever they did in Poland/

> No doubt, the UK experience
> was much better per capita, but there are always countries who are
> going to outperform the per capita statistics -- if not, the World Cup
> and many Olympic events would be much less interesting than they
> generally turn out.

A leading UK newspaper, the Independent, this week featured an article by
its political correspondent [I am not sure that its true! I should like to
understand more of it] that chess is second only to football [soccer to you]
in the UK. !!

---

And I think below you write sensible things, to which I would only add that
they need to be seen in the context of USCF's history and current fiscal
practices - illustrated by the actual practice as illustrated by 'these
bastions of free expression', and since this is where I think you would
outshine all other candidates, and also is 'the other hand' of marketing,
then a suggest that making constructive means to implement these factors,
especially considering the consdierable political graft and cronyism that is
not only in place, but has become institutionalised, absolutely deflating
any positive expectations that might result from it.

Which is to say, you will need to convince people not that you have a will
to do it, but a means to do it.

Cordially, Phil Innes

[Randy Bauer]

Geez, Phil, it's been a long time since I found myself in agreement
with many of the things you write -- maybe I'm mellowing with age.
Please note responses below.

Chess One wrote:
> "Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165898805.0...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Actually, I applauded and supported Don Schultz when he provided the
> > necessary leadership to reinstitute the BINFO system for communication
> > among the Board. I think the USCF forums are another excellent
> > opportunity for members and others to interact. It at least has, by
> > requiring members to post their ID numbers, prevented the spamming and
> > forgeries that plague this newsgroup.
>
> Let me just amplify on some of these themes, and with some other
> perspectives, not necessarily head-on ones, but tangential. I will not
> introduce new material, but use some news to illustrate points already
> raised:-
> --------
>
> I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the $10,000 'award',
> which is this week's scandal, and also how it was treated at the Nolanland
> forum by a moderator - which even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and
> offensive abuse of speech.
>
> I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner, which had no
> mention at all about an ethics scandal, and its far better psychologically
> to pre-empt criticism by admitting a problem, especially since this was yet
> another 'award' to insiders.

Well, my perspective is a bit different here; I think the USCF website
in general is meant to promote the USCF -- and chess -- in general. If
there is a need for discussion of the issues you describe, which would
be governance in nature, I would expect to see them either in the
members only sections or governance.

I'm not sure that I would describe spending $10,000 on fundraising as a
'scandal' although I think it's very fair to question whether any value
came from that expenditure. I do think that is an area where the Board
should be held accountable for it, but sometimes you do take risks that
don't pan out.

>
> If it isn't openly admitted, it is safe to assume that nothing at all will
> happen to obviate future occurance.
>
> --------
>
> > I think Susan Polgar has done more to market chess in this country than
> > any player in a long time. I don't know the percentage of credit Paul
> > should receive for this, but Susan suggests it is a lot.
>
> Yes, I think 'a lot' is correct. In fact last year 50 mainstream media
> mentions compared with 2 for USCF. That, as my wife says, 'is not nothing.'

Agreed.

>
> --------
>
> > It's all about providing something that people value, that is unique.
> > There are areas, such as Internet chess play, where I doubt the USCF is
> > going to be able to carve out a place from those who are further along.
> > However, given a strong scholastic presence, there must be
> > opportunities to continue to involve these players. I was one of those
> > strong scholastic players who ultimately stayed with the USCF, but the
> > chess playing world was a lot different then. Quite frankly, I think
> > the Board needs to dialogue with those who are the members, who may be
> > interested in paying for the USCF's services given their specific needs
> > and wants rather than thinking that they always know the answers.
>
> the 'old fashioned' sense of 'marketing' was purely analytical, and was
> indifferent to result - that is, it was not prescriptive, and the entire
> goal was to find where people were spening their money and where people
> would spend their money

Yes, but I think a member organization has to be held to a slightly
different standard. That was why I opposed the Natrol marketing, for
example.

>
> ----
>
> >> These are two vital statistics to the health of USCF and US chess, so it
> >> seems to me, and I compare them with UK stats from 35 years ago, when UK
> >> chess was about to birth some 20 GMs from its national club system.
> >
> > That was a unique and very interesting time! At the same time, the US
> > was developing some strong GMs as well.
>
> The per capita rate is interesting, and if extrapolated here would have
> produced 80 GMs. I think actual production in the same period was for
> home-grown GMs, UK = 20, USA = 2. Meanwhile Poland has produced 20 GMs from
> an even smaller pop. than UK since the wall came down.
>
> What is peculiar about these statistics is that there is rarely any
> curiosity about them - and they are most often met with passive-aggressive
> responses, like 'what's your point' as if people were too thick to notice
> the scale of the diference, or resented feeling that something was at all
> amiss here in sleepy USA.
>
> No one seems interested in learning anything about the UK club system, or
> whatever they did in Poland

I'm not sure I buy your claim of only 2 US GMs - off the top of my head
(maybe the years are wrong) wasn't there Rogoff, Tarjan, Soltis,
Fedorowicz, Benjamin, DeFirmian, Christiansen, Rohde, Henley, Ashley,
Sherzer, Tisdall. Plus, Seirwan, while not born in the US, was clearly
a product of US chess -- in some respects so was Browne. I probably
missed a few also.

>
> > No doubt, the UK experience
> > was much better per capita, but there are always countries who are
> > going to outperform the per capita statistics -- if not, the World Cup
> > and many Olympic events would be much less interesting than they
> > generally turn out.
>
> A leading UK newspaper, the Independent, this week featured an article by
> its political correspondent [I am not sure that its true! I should like to
> understand more of it] that chess is second only to football [soccer to you]
> in the UK. !!
>
> ---
>
> And I think below you write sensible things, to which I would only add that
> they need to be seen in the context of USCF's history and current fiscal
> practices - illustrated by the actual practice as illustrated by 'these
> bastions of free expression', and since this is where I think you would
> outshine all other candidates, and also is 'the other hand' of marketing,
> then a suggest that making constructive means to implement these factors,
> especially considering the consdierable political graft and cronyism that is
> not only in place, but has become institutionalised, absolutely deflating
> any positive expectations that might result from it.
>
> Which is to say, you will need to convince people not that you have a will
> to do it, but a means to do it.

That's entirely correct and a fair point. That is why I've pledged to
support any other reasonable candidates with the background,
temperment, and ability to work collectively for change. I'm not
interested in serving on another board that is sharply divided. I
think that I can work with Bill, Joel, Don, etc. and I pledge to do so
if I'm elected.

[Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"]

> It's all about providing something that people value, that is unique.
> There are areas, such as Internet chess play, where I doubt the USCF is
> going to be able to carve out a place from those who are further along.

Anyone who believes that is already admitting defeat in the most important
chess arena of the 21st century.

If an organization with a mailing list as large as USCF's can't dominate the
chess server market, something is seriously wrong.

[Chess One]

"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1166028969.6...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Geez, Phil, it's been a long time since I found myself in agreement
> with many of the things you write -- maybe I'm mellowing with age.
> Please note responses below.

sssh, people will suspect i am brown-nosing, in hope of fure preference -
whereas you know i am a son of a bitch ;) and i don't like anyone i like -
that is to say, if one couldn't disagree, what is agreement worth?

-------

>> I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner, which had no
>> mention at all about an ethics scandal, and its far better
>> psychologically
>> to pre-empt criticism by admitting a problem, especially since this was
>> yet
>> another 'award' to insiders.

<...>

> I'm not sure that I would describe spending $10,000 on fundraising as a
> 'scandal' although I think it's very fair to question whether any value
> came from that expenditure. I do think that is an area where the Board
> should be held accountable for it, but sometimes you do take risks that
> don't pan out.

Sure, and its other people's [members] money anyway and who has been
counting or measuring anything before? Might as well do 10 grand as 1. Who,
after all, is accountable - apparently and as usual, no one.

---------

>> Yes, I think 'a lot' is correct. In fact last year 50 mainstream media
>> mentions compared with 2 for USCF. That, as my wife says, 'is not
>> nothing.'
>
> Agreed.

Including one of two films now.

You know, the thing with S. Polgar is that she loves the game. She is
devoted to it, mand needs no other qualifications at all! Whereas the rest
of the candidates need to state their cases, et ca. People admit this of
Polgar since she demonstrates it beyond any personal intriguing or benefit.
It has been something missing from American chess, a sort of
immigrant-purity factor, that simply loves the game regardless of how others
behave - and this, by all accounts, is completely winning.

You, OTOH, must work at it, like all the other candidates. And to you must,
Randy, ask more pointedly about these 'awards' of big chunks of cash,
without bid, and without measure, scandals if conducted with govt. money
[though common as muck!] if you want to hold what any marketeer can garner
for you.

This, I suggest, is your metier.

------

>> the 'old fashioned' sense of 'marketing' was purely analytical, and was
>> indifferent to result - that is, it was not prescriptive, and the entire
>> goal was to find where people were spening their money and where people
>> would spend their money
>
> Yes, but I think a member organization has to be held to a slightly
> different standard. That was why I opposed the Natrol marketing, for
> example.

You should perhaps think think of member organisation only as a potential
sort of entity, whereas the truth of it is that board influence supercedes
any member influence. That is the rough truth of it.

> I'm not sure I buy your claim of only 2 US GMs - off the top of my head
> (maybe the years are wrong) wasn't there Rogoff, Tarjan, Soltis,
> Fedorowicz, Benjamin, DeFirmian, Christiansen, Rohde, Henley, Ashley,
> Sherzer, Tisdall. Plus, Seirwan, while not born in the US, was clearly
> a product of US chess -- in some respects so was Browne. I probably
> missed a few also.

their are 11 of 'em ;)
but not quite synchronous with the period cited above, which as mentioned
would have produced 80 from the UK system

-----

>> Which is to say, you will need to convince people not that you have a
>> will
>> to do it, but a means to do it.
>
> That's entirely correct and a fair point. That is why I've pledged to
> support any other reasonable candidates with the background,
> temperment, and ability to work collectively for change. I'm not
> interested in serving on another board that is sharply divided. I
> think that I can work with Bill, Joel, Don, etc. and I pledge to do so
> if I'm elected.

Bad idea!

What you must do, is serve the constituency of players for whom Bill, Joel
and Don are merrily innocent, since these are the folks who have never
conducted a survey of US members on anything significant matter, and can
arrange a meet the critics meeting with critics who can't say dickey-boo.

You need your own plank - and you don't get it yet. You need to be a right
bastard about spending money in accountable ways, and your experience allows
you to do that, and you have no competition whatsoever!

As someone who is indifferent to liking or not liking you, this is my
opinion. Ask 'uncle Larry' who is much the same, and although he actively
doesn't like you, he can still overcome his own liking or disliking to offer
disinterested and very practiced advice.

But I shove my opinionis at you too hard, and you will have to tolerate me,
perhaps because I will not be insistent that you do these things, but that
someone, for gawd's sake! does.

Phil Innes

[Randy Bauer]

Chess One wrote:
> "Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1166028969.6...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

> You know, the thing with S. Polgar is that she loves the game. She is
> devoted to it, mand needs no other qualifications at all! Whereas the rest
> of the candidates need to state their cases, et ca. People admit this of
> Polgar since she demonstrates it beyond any personal intriguing or benefit.
> It has been something missing from American chess, a sort of
> immigrant-purity factor, that simply loves the game regardless of how others
> behave - and this, by all accounts, is completely winning.

It's very true. When I was elected the last time, Susan sought me out,
and we had a conversation that lasted at least 30 minutes (keep in mind
we had never met before) about a variety of chess topics -- she is very
passionate about building chess in this country, and it was obvious to
me that she would provide the energy, drive, determination, etc., to
get it done. You're right that we should focus on results, and she has
delivered.

>
> You, OTOH, must work at it, like all the other candidates. And to you must,
> Randy, ask more pointedly about these 'awards' of big chunks of cash,
> without bid, and without measure, scandals if conducted with govt. money
> [though common as muck!] if you want to hold what any marketeer can garner
> for you.

OK, but we must also be willing to take risks from time to time. On
the USCF forum, Mikhail Korenman's successes, both in securing
additional funding for chess and other activities were listed, and it's
pretty darn impressive. Here is what Paul Truong listed:

Fundraising:

2003 - Received a grant from the State of Kansas for $251,000 to
operate the Karpov International School of chess in Lindsborg, KS

2005/06 - Raised $150,000 for the Chess for Peace program featured
former President Mikhail Gorbachev, World Champions Anatoly Karpov and
Susan Polgar and a nationalwide scholastic group trip to Moscow for a
match with Russian scholastic players

For the USCF sponsored activities:

2003, 2004 - Raised over $15,000 for the Final Four College
Presidential Cup (officially sponsored by USCF! With $0 support in 2003
from USCF)

2004 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov inauguration to the Hall of Fame
(USCF sponsored $1,000)

2005 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov participation at the SuperNational
in Nashville, TN (USCF support - $0)

Chess Organizer:

· 2004 U.S. Junior Open
· 2004 U.S. Junior Championship
· 2004 U.S. Cadet Championship
· 2004 Pan American Intercollegiate Championship
· 2003, 2004 Final Four Presidential Cup
· 2001-2004 Lindsborg Rotary Open
· 2002-2005 Lindsborg Open
· 2003 Lindsborg Invitational
· 2004 Lindsborg Knock-Out
· 2003, 2004, 2005 KS Open
· 2004, 2005 Anatoly Karpov - Susan Polgar Match
· 2001-2006 Scholastic tournaments
· 2005 KS Scholastic Grade Championship
· 2001-2006 Summer camps
· 2003-2005 Seminars for Educators
· 2006 Illinois Championship

Awards:

2006 USCF Special Service Award
2005 FIDE International Organizer
2005 Community Service Award (Lindsborg)
2005 Rotary International Service Award
2004 USCF Chess Organizer of the Year

Dr. Korenman is also an important member of the USCF Scholastic
Council. He is well respected by many people including former WC
Anatoly Karpov, former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, Susan
Polgar and countless others.

Now, if I were a funder presented with this history, I might think it
worth a $10,000 investment. That said, I agree with the basic point,
that the USCF EB is not Santa Claus, and we should expect a return on
our investments and hold people to specific tasks and quantifiable
deliverables.

You may know that I've moved into the world of consulting, and that is
what my clients demand of me -- I am more than willing to expect the
same for the USCF.

(snip)

>
> >> Which is to say, you will need to convince people not that you have a
> >> will
> >> to do it, but a means to do it.
> >
> > That's entirely correct and a fair point. That is why I've pledged to
> > support any other reasonable candidates with the background,
> > temperment, and ability to work collectively for change. I'm not
> > interested in serving on another board that is sharply divided. I
> > think that I can work with Bill, Joel, Don, etc. and I pledge to do so
> > if I'm elected.
>
> Bad idea!
>
> What you must do, is serve the constituency of players for whom Bill, Joel
> and Don are merrily innocent, since these are the folks who have never
> conducted a survey of US members on anything significant matter, and can
> arrange a meet the critics meeting with critics who can't say dickey-boo.

It's a cogent point, but I don't think our positions aren't mutually
exclusive. The last time I served on the Board, I was supported and
aligned with a Board majority with whom I parted ways on several
important occasions. I worked to sway their votes, and sometimes I was
frustrated by what I perceived to be an "us versus them" mentality.
That is what I would work to eliminate from the Board's deliberations.

At the same time, I think it is important, once the Board has a made a
decision to constructively support the decision. Granted, there are
obviously exceptions for things like malfeasance, but when it's on the
margin, the Board needs to project itself as a team working for common
goals and objectives. That was my approach last time -- while I did
not agree with the decision at the time to select Crossville, I worked
to make it a success and argued for the good aspects of the decision.
I still think that is the right approach.

There are, however, some places where I went along last time where I
would now make more of a stand. I think that comes with experience and
with understanding your role. I like to think that I wouldn't need on
the job training.

>
> You need your own plank - and you don't get it yet. You need to be a right
> bastard about spending money in accountable ways, and your experience allows
> you to do that, and you have no competition whatsoever!

See the paragraph above -- I am happy to fulfill that role. The joke
in the Vilsack Administration when I was budget director was that the
Governor got to say yes, and it was my job to say no. I've practice
plenty in front of mirrors, and I can say no to just about anybody.

>
> As someone who is indifferent to liking or not liking you, this is my
> opinion. Ask 'uncle Larry' who is much the same, and although he actively
> doesn't like you, he can still overcome his own liking or disliking to offer
> disinterested and very practiced advice.

Thanks Phil -- although I think your indifference is more to the point
than Larry's.

>
> But I shove my opinionis at you too hard, and you will have to tolerate me,
> perhaps because I will not be insistent that you do these things, but that
> someone, for gawd's sake! does.
>
> Phil Innes
>

Randy Bauer

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
7 abuse of speech.

_
Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
the examples?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...

_
What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
vague, would he?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 ... The per capita rate is interesting, and if extrapolated
7 here would have produced 80 GMs. I think actual
7 production in the same period was for home-grown GMs,
7 UK = 20, USA = 2. Meanwhile Poland has produced 20
7 GMs from an even smaller pop. than UK since the wall
7 came down. ...

_
"In Europe, playing chess professionally is a
viable occupation." - Jennifer Shahade

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 ... No one seems interested in learning anything about
7 the UK club system, or whatever they did in Poland/ ...

_
"What can the USCF do about this?" - Louis
Blair (30 Mar 2006 07:16:13 -0800)

[Chess One]

"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1166061184.5...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

Chess One wrote:
> "Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1166028969.6...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> You know, the thing with S. Polgar is that she loves the game. She is
> devoted to it, mand needs no other qualifications at all! Whereas the rest
> of the candidates need to state their cases, et ca. People admit this of
> Polgar since she demonstrates it beyond any personal intriguing or
> benefit.
> It has been something missing from American chess, a sort of
> immigrant-purity factor, that simply loves the game regardless of how
> others
> behave - and this, by all accounts, is completely winning.

It's very true. When I was elected the last time, Susan sought me out,
and we had a conversation that lasted at least 30 minutes (keep in mind
we had never met before) about a variety of chess topics -- she is very
passionate about building chess in this country, and it was obvious to
me that she would provide the energy, drive, determination, etc., to
get it done.

**She is an Ailein Duinn! Which is to say, the soul of it, which cannot be
reduced, though rather evidently, it can be forgot that we have souls!

You're right that we should focus on results, and she has
delivered.

**And all that needs grounding and securing. In the group role-play, that is
what is also missing and the necessary complimentary factor, and a function
that is heretofore not as much forgot, since there has been so very little
to secure, as unpracticed.

> You, OTOH, must work at it, like all the other candidates. And to you
> must,
> Randy, ask more pointedly about these 'awards' of big chunks of cash,
> without bid, and without measure, scandals if conducted with govt. money
> [though common as muck!] if you want to hold what any marketeer can garner
> for you.

OK, but we must also be willing to take risks from time to time. On
the USCF forum, Mikhail Korenman's successes, both in securing
additional funding for chess and other activities were listed, and it's
pretty darn impressive. Here is what Paul Truong listed:

<...> snips

**Yes I know him. I would also mention that he seems able to talk about the
pedagogical aspects of chess - which no one has secured enough to go where
the real money is, mainstream education. I talked with him for hours about
it. As a group-role in your mix of 4, that would be the prime prospect for
Michael, IMO.

---

Now, if I were a funder presented with this history, I might think it
worth a $10,000 investment. That said, I agree with the basic point,
that the USCF EB is not Santa Claus, and we should expect a return on
our investments and hold people to specific tasks and quantifiable
deliverables.

**Yes - no need to not recognise talent and the best chance of a return, but
some accounting is necessary too. I think especially the EB hasn't noticed
that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. And to skip that
step of transparency you must be superb! So that your work speaks for
itself. But the board is composed of regular mortals, and they mostly
certainly /need/ to be reminded of the fact.

---------

> Bad idea!
>
> What you must do, is serve the constituency of players for whom Bill, Joel
> and Don are merrily innocent, since these are the folks who have never
> conducted a survey of US members on anything significant matter, and can
> arrange a meet the critics meeting with critics who can't say dickey-boo.

It's a cogent point, but I don't think our positions aren't mutually
exclusive. The last time I served on the Board, I was supported and
aligned with a Board majority with whom I parted ways on several
important occasions. I worked to sway their votes, and sometimes I was
frustrated by what I perceived to be an "us versus them" mentality.
That is what I would work to eliminate from the Board's deliberations.

**I personally think some bad habits are so entrenched, and all swinging
together will be nigh-on impossible with the current crew. And they are also
too old! You are not just dealing with a few years of board activity but the
fixed corporate culture of 20 years. Even well-meaning people need to be
left behind if they can't go faster than 2 mph, since the prevailing
head-wind is 3 mph. [I also consult]

----

> As someone who is indifferent to liking or not liking you, this is my
> opinion. Ask 'uncle Larry' who is much the same, and although he actively
> doesn't like you, he can still overcome his own liking or disliking to
> offer
> disinterested and very practiced advice.

Thanks Phil -- although I think your indifference is more to the point
than Larry's.

**that quote's a keeper!

**but i hope you understand me - there /is/ good will to evolving chess
across the spectrum of opinion, independent of personal likes and dislikes,
and you will be lucky indeed to work only with those you personally find
congenial. good advice has been kept at arms-length for a long time at USCF,
and I would say there are many more out than in - and few who are out are
pleased with the old gang and its routines, and it is pointless asking for
their trust - if that is to be regained it that has to be resubstantiated by
demonstration, not talk

**As chess players this is easy to understand, since isn't it the first
reaction to any claim to say "show me, don't tell me".

o hi shiubhlin leat, Phil Innes

[Chess One]

"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1166068882....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
>
> 7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
> 7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
> 7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
> 7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
> 7 abuse of speech.
>
> _
> Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
> with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"?

Is Louis Blair asking me if he can understand what I wrote? I think he is
asking me that. OTOH, he could be asking me if I 'claim' I wrote what I did.

> If so, where are
> the examples?

Louis Blair doesn't understand where these examples are from what I wrote,
even though I wrote Nolandland, which he forgot to snip ;(

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
>
> 7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
> 7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...
>
> _
> What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
> wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
> vague, would he?

Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his usual thing of
cutting text then asking a question about it, and unusual for him, or them,
has come immediately tot he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would
hate to be thought of as vague by them.

Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the backside of the moon?
Perhaps 'we' could think which of those are more likely locations, but most
likely 'we' won't and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til christmas and win
another $5 bet.

Cordially, The M*asked V*rmont*r.

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
7 abuse of speech.
_

I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
7 with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
7 the examples?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):

7 Is Louis Blair asking me if he can understand what I wrote?
7 I think he is asking me that. OTOH, he could be asking me
7 if I 'claim' I wrote what I did.
7
7 Louis Blair doesn't understand where these examples are
7 from what I wrote, even though I wrote Nolandland, which
7 he forgot to snip ;(

_
Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be a
specific example. He, of course, prefers not to.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...
_

I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
7 wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
7 vague, would he? ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):

7 Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his
7 usual thing of cutting text then asking a question about it,

_
Nonsense. I quoted the text that I was asking about.
See above, where it is quoted again.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):

7 and unusual for him, or them, has come immediately tot
7 he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would hate to
7 be thought of as vague by them.
7
7 Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the
7 backside of the moon? Perhaps 'we' could think which of
7 those are more likely locations, but most likely 'we' won't
7 and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
7 and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til
7 christmas and win another $5 bet.

_
It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does not
want to be specific about this matter.

[Chess One]

"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message

news:1166124000....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
> 7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
> 7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
> 7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
> 7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
> 7 abuse of speech.
> _
> I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
> 7 Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
> 7 with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
> 7 the examples?
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
>
> 7 Is Louis Blair asking me if he can understand what I wrote?
> 7 I think he is asking me that. OTOH, he could be asking me
> 7 if I 'claim' I wrote what I did.
> 7
> 7 Louis Blair doesn't understand where these examples are
> 7 from what I wrote, even though I wrote Nolandland, which
> 7 he forgot to snip ;(
>
> _
> Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be a
> specific example. He, of course, prefers not to.

I win! He has asked me to identify what he snipped - and though I wrote whay
he snipped, and then wrote that he would ask me to be specific about his
snip, he concludes I prefer not to be 'specific' - though maybe he means I
will not repost the specific text that he cut? Anyway, only I can do it,
whatever the it is.

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
> 7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
> 7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...
> _
> I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
> 7 What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
> 7 wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
> 7 vague, would he? ...

I wrote: I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,

which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...

and Louis Blair wrote <stardate (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):> : What

"reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes

wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately vague, would he?
...

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
>
> 7 Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his
> 7 usual thing of cutting text then asking a question about it,
>
> _
> Nonsense. I quoted the text that I was asking about.
> See above, where it is quoted again.

The text that mentioned USCF was cut. Therefore we learn two things - one,
Louis insists it is somewhere above, though I pointedly said it was cut, and
two, he has requoted the wrong text which quite obviously he can't
understand, since as I wrote above - it's the wrong text.

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
>
> 7 and unusual for him, or them, has come immediately tot
> 7 he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would hate to
> 7 be thought of as vague by them.
> 7
> 7 Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the
> 7 backside of the moon? Perhaps 'we' could think which of
> 7 those are more likely locations, but most likely 'we' won't
> 7 and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
> 7 and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til
> 7 christmas and win another $5 bet.
>
> _
> It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does not
> want to be specific about this matter.

Be specific about what matter? Where the backside of the moon is? Be
specific about if Louis should think about where it could be, or even that
the text that was cut, which ipso facto was a specific to itself, or if
asking some or all these questions is nothing I want to be specific about
[again].

Is Louis Blair still claiming he is specific about any of those, or maybe
something else? Something lost, something blue, something in Nottingham, or
something to do with 'matter'?

There is a lot of money riding on if he feels compelled to answer.

Phil Innes

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
7 abuse of speech.
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
7 with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
7 the examples?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 Is Louis Blair asking me if he can understand what I wrote?
7 I think he is asking me that. OTOH, he could be asking me
7 if I 'claim' I wrote what I did.
7
7 Louis Blair doesn't understand where these examples are
7 from what I wrote, even though I wrote Nolandland, which
7 he forgot to snip ;(
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be a
7 specific example. He, of course, prefers not to.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 I win! He has asked me to identify what he snipped - and
7 though I wrote whay he snipped, and then wrote that he
7 would ask me to be specific about his snip,

_
Nonsense. I am asking Phil Innes to be specific about
his charges against the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 he concludes I prefer not to be 'specific' - though maybe
7 he means I will not repost the specific text that he cut?

_
No. I see nothing that I would call specific in any of the
notes mentioned above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Anyway, only I can do it, whatever the it is. ...

_
"Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers

to be a specific example." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
11:20:00 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
7 wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
7 vague, would he? ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his
7 usual thing of cutting text then asking a question about it,
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 Nonsense. I quoted the text that I was asking about. See
7 above, where it is quoted again.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 ... The text that mentioned USCF was cut.

_
One instance of Phil Innes mentioning USCF is reproduced
above (and has been reproduced in my previous notes in
this exchange). In any event, mentioning USCF does not
tell us what "reporting about Tanner", Phil Innes was writing
about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Therefore we learn two things - one, Louis insists it is
7 somewhere above, though I pointedly said it was cut, and
7 two, he has requoted the wrong text which quite obviously
7 he can't understand, since as I wrote above - it's the wrong
7 text.

_
What I wrote:
_

"I quoted the text that I was asking about."

- Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800)
_
That statement is true.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 and unusual for him, or them, has come immediately tot
7 he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would hate to
7 be thought of as vague by them.
7
7 Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the
7 backside of the moon? Perhaps 'we' could think which of
7 those are more likely locations, but most likely 'we' won't
7 and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
7 and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til
7 christmas and win another $5 bet.
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does
7 not want to be specific about this matter.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Be specific about what matter?

_
It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does not

want to specifically identify the "reporting about Tanner"
that he was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Where the backside of the moon is?

_
No. See above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Be specific about if Louis should think about where it
7 could be,

_
Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be

"less-than-honest reporting about Tanner".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 or even that the text that was cut, which ipso facto was
7 a specific to itself, or if asking some or all these questions
7 is nothing I want to be specific about [again].

_
Mentioning USCF does not tell us what "reporting about
Tanner", Phil Innes was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Is Louis Blair still claiming he is specific about any of
7 those, or maybe something else? Something lost, something
7 blue, something in Nottingham, or something to do with 'matter'?
7
7 There is a lot of money riding on if he feels compelled to answer.

_
I am seeking identification of specific examples of the moderator
behavior to which Phil Innes objects. I am also seeking a specific
identification of the supposed "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner".

[Chess One]

"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message

news:1166131162.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Louis snipped not my charges, but what USCF members said at Nolandland, and
now says this its nonsense, while repeating his request to identify what he
snipped.

Of course what Louis might mean [??] is that he can't relate my 'charges',
to use his term, to anything else because he snipped the reference which
would make the question unnecesssary. Can Louis Blair quote my use of the
word 'charges'?

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
>
> 7 he concludes I prefer not to be 'specific' - though maybe
> 7 he means I will not repost the specific text that he cut?
>
> _
> No. I see nothing that I would call specific in any of the
> notes mentioned above.

Once again Louis thinks its worth writing to this newsgroup to say he
ignores what he cut, to state that he doesn't see anything specific in what
he chose to leave in.

I wonder what his decision basis for cutting it was in the first place!??
Since that is the only material that he seems interested in, while plainly
ignoring uncut material.

Is this a sort of inverse editing of content? Perhaps Captain Kingston-ite
could comment?

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
>
> 7 Anyway, only I can do it, whatever the it is. ...
>
> _
> "Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers
> to be a specific example." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
> 11:20:00 -0800)

The specific example[s] in question are the ones cut by Louis Blair. The
reason to post them in the first place was to provide specific examples. Now
Louis Blair falsely says that only I can identify them, but after posting
them anyone could. In fact Louis Blair has already identified them because
he was the one who chsoe to cut them!

Our Louis is like one of those evil-geniuses in a Superman movie, waving the
Kingston-ite in front of us, by asking questions about what he himself
dissapeared!

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
> 7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
> 7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...
> _
> I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
> 7 What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
> 7 wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
> 7 vague, would he? ...
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
> 7 Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his
> 7 usual thing of cutting text then asking a question about it,
> _
> I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
> 7 Nonsense. I quoted the text that I was asking about. See
> 7 above, where it is quoted again.
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
>
> 7 ... The text that mentioned USCF was cut.
>
> _
> One instance of Phil Innes mentioning USCF is reproduced
> above (and has been reproduced in my previous notes in
> this exchange).

Louis pretends to be honest by saying one instance is 'reproduced' above,
and maybe if someone or other can 'reproduce' the other instance, the one he
now questions, then he would be happy?

> In any event, mentioning USCF does not
> tell us what "reporting about Tanner", Phil Innes was writing
> about.

I note that is not a quote! But it is also not an inquiry. Neither is it a
dispute. It is a question that could be resolved by actually looking at
USCF's website thereby removing the need to ask questions as if to doubt the
source. Which is pretty much what I wrote before.

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
>
> 7 Therefore we learn two things - one, Louis insists it is
> 7 somewhere above, though I pointedly said it was cut, and
> 7 two, he has requoted the wrong text which quite obviously
> 7 he can't understand, since as I wrote above - it's the wrong
> 7 text.
>
> _
> What I wrote:
> _
> "I quoted the text that I was asking about."
> - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800)
> _
> That statement is true.

Louis Blair does not deny that he cut the text which he knows contains the
reference he now asks me for, since he made a SPECIFIC decision to cut that
material himself,
but continues to say
like a demented Danny Kaye
that in the text he left uncut the reference he wants is not in it!

Furthermore, even though I wrote that his text is the wrong text, he
continues to blandly assert that the reference is not in the wrong text,
while not denying that he himself cut it from 'the right text.'

_
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
> 7 and unusual for him, or them, has come immediately tot
> 7 he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would hate to
> 7 be thought of as vague by them.
> 7
> 7 Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the
> 7 backside of the moon? Perhaps 'we' could think which of
> 7 those are more likely locations, but most likely 'we' won't
> 7 and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
> 7 and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til
> 7 christmas and win another $5 bet.
> _
> I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
> 7 It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does
> 7 not want to be specific about this matter.
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
>
> 7 Be specific about what matter?
>
> _
> It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does not
> want to specifically identify the "reporting about Tanner"
> that he was writing about.

What specificity is being inquired about that is not already written but
excised in the cut text?

It is of course not surprising that Louis Blair will cut something, not deny
he cut it, then continue to ask others to put it back! And furthermore, that
he would not go look himself, since surely if I could it, he could.

What what exactly he wants to know about the reporting of Tanner
specifically, he doesn't mention.

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
>
> 7 Where the backside of the moon is?
>
> _
> No. See above.

Louis must think that ' does not want to specifically identify the
"reporting about Tanner" ' is a question, or that it can be answered.
Whatever I wrote before is not specific enough for him, since he now asks
for something else, but what?

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
>
> 7 Be specific about if Louis should think about where it
> 7 could be,
>
> _
> Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be
> "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner".

And only Phil Innes did.

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
>
> 7 or even that the text that was cut, which ipso facto was
> 7 a specific to itself, or if asking some or all these questions
> 7 is nothing I want to be specific about [again].
>
> _
> Mentioning USCF does not tell us what "reporting about
> Tanner", Phil Innes was writing about.

Mentioning my "reporting about Tanner" does not tell me what Louis Blair is
asking.

> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
>
> 7 Is Louis Blair still claiming he is specific about any of
> 7 those, or maybe something else? Something lost, something
> 7 blue, something in Nottingham, or something to do with 'matter'?
> 7
> 7 There is a lot of money riding on if he feels compelled to answer.
>
> _
> I am seeking identification of specific examples of the moderator
> behavior to which Phil Innes objects.

Louis cut reactions to the moderator, is he asking for verbatim moderator
text? Is he asking because he can't view them himself? Or is he asking
because he doubts why members reacted as he did?

And what does 'seeking identification' actually mean?

> I am also seeking a specific
> identification of the supposed "less-than-honest reporting about
> Tanner".

So when Louis Blair subtracts what I already wrote from what he wants to
know, I presume he will then share whatever still puzzles him in clear-text,
so to speak, as well as stating why he wants someone else to provide him
with that information, especially since he seems in so much private doubt of
its veracity.

It is not surprising that after several thousand words already, Louis Blair
has not said why he is asking anyone anything.

10 days til Christmas!!

Phil Innes

[Chess One]

"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1166196410.3...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Dec 15, 10:05 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public announcements -
>
> There are many posts and announcements on USCF's website. Looking
> there does not tell us to which *_specific_* posts and/or announcements
> you refer.

Actually, the thread was stopped, but another started in its place
Korenman and other things removed from Lux thread

At last viewing it was the top topic.

I just read the moderator's ex culpa, "EDIT: I just re-read this and it
seems that the tone is more negative than I really intended. I've made
harsher statements than were really called for, and I appologize. Please
take the above comments as a simple "disagreement" and not the
"condemnation" that they sound like."

Sloans comments are supported by Ron Suarez and also a USCF Delegate.
Another poster comments that the moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'.

But this moderator [who BTBW sent me an e-mail] is not quite catching the
drift as has replied to that comment, "Other than showing yourself to be
educationally impaired, what purpose does your post serve?"

and this is where the comemnt occurs: 'Nice. What a pleasant experience it
must be to have a conversation with you! I express a simple opinion, with a
little humor added, about what could be inferred from your remarks, and this
is your response. Serves me right I guess, for even thinking about
expressing an opinon on these bastions of free expression.'

And Kingston - this is the wrong thread to write this in, since bastions.

Now, that's just page one of 7 pages. Are you catching the drift? This
thread is now titled:

Korenman and other things removed from Lux thread

which might be evident to your diligent researches.

>> and stop
>> your abuse in place of a little diligence, Kingston.
>
> Phil, I abuse you for your _lack_ of diligence. You make charges
> without evidence.

You are using the word charges again - about what other people are writing.
But you can't figure out after looking [!] where the thread is?

I am noticing what other people are saying; here is yet another voice: "I
think that you hate Sam Sloan so much, that anything that he does say must
be attacked."

Now Nolan has kicked in to ask about other disciplinary measures to be taken
against Sam Sloan.

Another poster is getting at Beatriz Marinello - who raised all the original
issues, referring to her Fide alliance.

On the next page the moderator has used outside type IN RED to shout at Sam
Sloan. This BIG RED is met by a new poster's comment
"The Tanstaafl comet is back; look at it going around the Sloan star, and
what a dysfunctional solar system we have."
Which obtains an apology for knee-jerk reactions and 'over-reations' from
the [ROFL] moderator

But then we have thread-drift, and Bill Goichberg plus other politicos
begine to talk about being reimbursed for expenses, and eventually fizzles
when someone called 'rfeditor' writes [in a moderated forum] "You must know
as well as I do what those line items were for. I'd really like to phrase
this more harshly (something on the order of "Are you really a moron or an
amazingly lifelike imitation?"), but that might be considered a personal
attack."

To which the Moderator [ROFL] says NOTHING.

--

Phil Innes

>> I already wrote these references ...
>
> You did no such thing. You have never specified what you are
> referring to. You have not said what you considered "rash and offensive
> abuse of speech," nor what you considered "less-than-honest reporting
> about Tanner."
>
>> and Blair cut them.
>
> Nonsense. Blair cannot cut what was never there. He cannot even cut
> what _is_ there, because your original posts are still there, exactly
> as you wrote them. And they contain none of the information you claim
> they do.
> Your continual whining about "cutting" and "snipping" is one of your
> most frequent, and most childish and inept excuses. It is so
> pathetically transparent that it has made you a laughingstock, Phil.
>
>> As a pair of Vague nitwits, you guys get the prize.
>
> Being called "vague" by Phil Innes is like being called "short" by a
> Munchkin.
>

[Taylor Kingston]

On Dec 15, 11:34 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in messagenews:1166196410.3...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

>
> > On Dec 15, 10:05 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public announcements -
>
> > There are many posts and announcements on USCF's website. Looking
> > there does not tell us to which *_specific_* posts and/or announcements
> > you refer.
>
> Actually, the thread was stopped, but another started in its place
> Korenman and other things removed from Lux thread
>
> At last viewing it was the top topic.
>
> I just read the moderator's ex culpa, "EDIT: I just re-read this and it
> seems that the tone is more negative than I really intended. I've made
> harsher statements than were really called for, and I appologize. Please
> take the above comments as a simple "disagreement" and not the
> "condemnation" that they sound like."
>
> Sloans comments are supported by Ron Suarez and also a USCF Delegate.
> Another poster comments that the moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'.
>
> But this moderator [who BTBW sent me an e-mail] is not quite catching the
> drift as has replied to that comment, "Other than showing yourself to be
> educationally impaired, what purpose does your post serve?"
>
> and this is where the comemnt occurs: 'Nice. What a pleasant experience it
> must be to have a conversation with you! I express a simple opinion, with a
> little humor added, about what could be inferred from your remarks, and this
> is your response. Serves me right I guess, for even thinking about
> expressing an opinon on these bastions of free expression.'

Our Phil finally presents some specific quotes, after claiming he had
already done so. So Phil, is the above supposed to be the "rash and
offensive abuse of speech" you referred to? Sounds like a toned-down
version of a run-of-the-mill rgcp thread.

> And Kingston - this is the wrong thread to write this in, since bastions.

Is that sentence supposed to make sense?

> Now, that's just page one of 7 pages. Are you catching the drift? This
> thread is now titled:
>
> Korenman and other things removed from Lux thread
>
> which might be evident to your diligent researches.
>
> >> and stop
> >> your abuse in place of a little diligence, Kingston.
>
> > Phil, I abuse you for your _lack_ of diligence. You make charges
> > without evidence.
>
> You are using the word charges again - about what other people are writing.
> But you can't figure out after looking [!] where the thread is?

Phil, if you are going to make claims here about a thread on the USCF
web-site, it is up to *_you_* to present *_here_* the parts of that
thread you consider relevant to your claims. It is not the
responsibility of others to establish your claims for you.

> I am noticing what other people are saying; here is yet another voice: "I
> think that you hate Sam Sloan so much, that anything that he does say must
> be attacked."
>
> Now Nolan has kicked in to ask about other disciplinary measures to be taken
> against Sam Sloan.
>
> Another poster is getting at Beatriz Marinello - who raised all the original
> issues, referring to her Fide alliance.
>
> On the next page the moderator has used outside type IN RED to shout at Sam
> Sloan. This BIG RED is met by a new poster's comment
> "The Tanstaafl comet is back; look at it going around the Sloan star, and
> what a dysfunctional solar system we have."
> Which obtains an apology for knee-jerk reactions and 'over-reations' from
> the [ROFL] moderator
>
> But then we have thread-drift, and Bill Goichberg plus other politicos
> begine to talk about being reimbursed for expenses, and eventually fizzles
> when someone called 'rfeditor' writes [in a moderated forum] "You must know
> as well as I do what those line items were for. I'd really like to phrase
> this more harshly (something on the order of "Are you really a moron or an
> amazingly lifelike imitation?"), but that might be considered a personal
> attack."
>
> To which the Moderator [ROFL] says NOTHING.

If the above is supposed to establish our Phil's claim of "rash and
offensive abuse of speech," I am not terribly impressed, since it is
considerably less rash and offensive than what he himself habitually
writes here.
Furthermore, I see nothing in the above at all relevant to the claim
of "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner." Given our Phil's track
record as a journalist, such a charge from him is rather like Khruschev
calling someone a Communist.

[Louis Blair]

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 Nonsense. I am asking Phil Innes to be specific about
7 his charges against the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis snipped not my charges, but what USCF members
7 said at Nolandland,

_
Phil Innes is now accusing me of snipping something that
was not there. The Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT Phil
Innes note did not contain "what USCF members said at
Nolandland". Phil Innes is probably thinking of his Wed,
13 Dec 2006 15:52:36 GMT note that he posted in another
thread ("these bastions of free expression"). THAT note
DID contain a Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm quote of Donna
Alarie (part of a reaction to a Beatriz Marinello note), and a
Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:31 pm quote of Timothy Sawmiller (part
of a reaction to a Herbert Vaughn note). I dealt with those
quotes in my notes in THAT thread. Neither quote expressed
disapproval of any specific action by the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 and now says this its nonsense,

_
I have used "nonsense" in connection with the Phil Innes
pretense of describing what I wrote.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 while repeating his request to identify what he snipped.

_
I am not requesting Phil Innes to identify what I snipped.
I already know what I snipped.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Of course what Louis might mean [??] is that he can't
7 relate my 'charges', to use his term, to anything else
7 because he snipped the reference which would make
7 the question unnecesssary.

_
Mentioning USCF (and Donna Alarie and Timothy Sawmiller
quotes) does not identify specific examples of moderator
behavior to which Phil Innes objects. Neither quote
expressed disapproval of any specific action by the
moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Can Louis Blair quote my use of the word 'charges'?

_
I did not claim that Phil Innes used the word, "charges".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 he concludes I prefer not to be 'specific' - though maybe
7 he means I will not repost the specific text that he cut?
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 No. I see nothing that I would call specific in any of the
7 notes mentioned above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Once again Louis thinks its worth writing to this
7 newsgroup to say he ignores what he cut, to state that
7 he doesn't see anything specific in what he chose to
7 leave in.

_
Nonsense again. I referred to the NOTES mentioned
above, not the QUOTES mentioned above. In those
NOTES (the Phil Innes notes dated by Google as
Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT, Thu, 14 Dec 2006
13:21:30 GMT, and Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT),
I saw nothing that identified specific examples of

moderator behavior to which Phil Innes objects.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 I wonder what his decision basis for cutting it was in
7 the first place!?? Since that is the only material that
7 he seems interested in, while plainly ignoring uncut
7 material.
7
7 Is this a sort of inverse editing of content? Perhaps
7 Captain Kingston-ite could comment?

_
I cut such things as the Phil Innes comments on GM
production that were not helpful as far as identifying
specific examples of moderator behavior to which Phil
Innes objects (and not helpful identifying the supposed
"less-than-honest reporting about Tanner").

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Anyway, only I can do it, whatever the it is. ...
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 "Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers

7 to be a specific example." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
7 11:20:00 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 The specific example[s] in question are the ones cut
7 by Louis Blair. The reason to post them in the first place
7 was to provide specific examples. Now Louis Blair falsely
7 says that only I can identify them, but after posting them
7 anyone could. In fact Louis Blair has already identified
7 them because he was the one who chsoe to cut them!
7
7 Our Louis is like one of those evil-geniuses in a Superman
7 movie, waving the Kingston-ite in front of us, by asking
7 questions about what he himself dissapeared!

_
Mentioning USCF (and Donna Alarie and Timothy Sawmiller
quotes) does not identify specific examples of moderator
behavior to which Phil Innes objects. Neither quote
expressed disapproval of any specific action by the
moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
7 wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
7 vague, would he? ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his
7 usual thing of cutting text then asking a question about it,
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 Nonsense. I quoted the text that I was asking about. See
7 above, where it is quoted again.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 ... The text that mentioned USCF was cut.
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 One instance of Phil Innes mentioning USCF is reproduced
7 above (and has been reproduced in my previous notes in
7 this exchange). In any event, mentioning USCF does not
7 tell us what "reporting about Tanner", Phil Innes was writing
7 about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis pretends to be honest by saying one instance is
7 'reproduced' above, and maybe if someone or other can
7 'reproduce' the other instance, the one he now questions,
7 then he would be happy?

_
Mentioning USCF does not identify the "reporting about
Tanner" that Phil Innes was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 I note that is not a quote!

_
It is a quote from the Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT
note of Phil Innes. See above or check google records.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 But it is also not an inquiry. Neither is it a dispute. It is
7 a question that could be resolved by actually looking at
7 USCF's website thereby removing the need to ask
7 questions as if to doubt the source. Which is pretty
7 much what I wrote before.

_
I HAVE looked at USCF's website and do not know what
supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner" Phil
Innes was writing about.

_

Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Therefore we learn two things - one, Louis insists it is
7 somewhere above, though I pointedly said it was cut, and
7 two, he has requoted the wrong text which quite obviously
7 he can't understand, since as I wrote above - it's the wrong
7 text.
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 What I wrote:
7
7 "I quoted the text that I was asking about."
7 - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800)
7
7 That statement is true.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis Blair does not deny that he cut the text which
7 he knows contains the reference he now asks me for,
7 since he made a SPECIFIC decision to cut that
7 material himself, but continues to say like a demented
7 Danny Kaye that in the text he left uncut the reference
7 he wants is not in it!
7
7 Furthermore, even though I wrote that his text is the wrong
7 text, he continues to blandly assert that the reference is
7 not in the wrong text, while not denying that he himself cut
7 it from 'the right text.'

_
I see nothing that I would call specific (about examples of
the moderator behavior to which Phil Innes objects or about
the identification of the supposedly "less-than-honest
reporting about Tanner") in any of the Phil Innes notes
with google dates Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT, Thu,
14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT, Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT,
and Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT. (That sentence refers
to BOTH cut and uncut material.)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 and unusual for him, or them, has come immediately tot
7 he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would hate to
7 be thought of as vague by them.
7
7 Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the
7 backside of the moon? Perhaps 'we' could think which of
7 those are more likely locations, but most likely 'we' won't
7 and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
7 and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til
7 christmas and win another $5 bet.
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does
7 not want to be specific about this matter.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Be specific about what matter?
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does not
7 want to specifically identify the "reporting about Tanner"
7 that he was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 What specificity is being inquired about that is not already
7 written but excised in the cut text?

_
Mentioning USCF does not identify the "reporting about
Tanner" that Phil Innes was writing about. Phil Innes could
be more specific by quoting the first few words of the
supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner"
or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 It is of course not surprising that Louis Blair will cut
7 something, not deny he cut it, then continue to ask
7 others to put it back!

_
At the beginning of EVERY note that I have posted in
this exchange, I have quoted Phil Innes referring to "the
USCF site". I am not asking Phil Innes to put that back.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 And furthermore, that he would not go look himself,
7 since surely if I could it, he could.

_
I HAVE looked and found nothing to support the Phil
Innes moderator and reporting criticism.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 What what exactly he wants to know about the
7 reporting of Tanner specifically, he doesn't mention.

_
"I am ... seeking a specific identification of
the supposed 'less-than-honest reporting
about Tanner'." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
13:19:22 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Where the backside of the moon is?
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 No. See above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis must think that ' does not want to specifically identify
7 the "reporting about Tanner" ' is a question, or that it can be
7 answered. Whatever I wrote before is not specific enough
7 for him, since he now asks for something else, but what?

_
Phil Innes could be more specific by quoting the first few
words of the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner" or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Be specific about if Louis should think about where it
7 could be,
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be

7 "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 And only Phil Innes did.

_

Mentioning USCF does not tell us what "reporting about

Tanner", Phil Innes was writing about. Phil Innes could
be more specific by quoting the first few words of the
supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner"
or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 or even that the text that was cut, which ipso facto was
7 a specific to itself, or if asking some or all these questions
7 is nothing I want to be specific about [again].
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 Mentioning USCF does not tell us what "reporting about
7 Tanner", Phil Innes was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Mentioning my "reporting about Tanner" does not tell me
7 what Louis Blair is asking.

_
"I am ... seeking a specific identification of
the supposed 'less-than-honest reporting
about Tanner'." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
13:19:22 -0800)
_
Phil Innes could be more specific by quoting the first few
words of the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner" or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Is Louis Blair still claiming he is specific about any of
7 those, or maybe something else? Something lost, something
7 blue, something in Nottingham, or something to do with 'matter'?
7
7 There is a lot of money riding on if he feels compelled to answer.
_

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 I am seeking identification of specific examples of the moderator
7 behavior to which Phil Innes objects. I am also seeking a specific
7 identification of the supposed "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis cut reactions to the moderator,

_
Phil Innes is accusing me of cutting something that was
not there. The Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT Phil
Innes note did not contain "reactions to the moderator"
other than the comments of Phil Innes himself that I
DID quote. Phil Innes is probably thinking of his Wed,
13 Dec 2006 15:52:36 GMT note that he posted in another
thread ("these bastions of free expression"). THAT note
DID contain a Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm quote of Donna
Alarie (part of a reaction to a Beatriz Marinello note), and a
Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:31 pm quote of Timothy Sawmiller (part
of a reaction to a Herbert Vaughn note). I dealt with those
quotes in my notes in THAT thread. Neither Beatriz
Marinello nor Herbert Vaughn is the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 is he asking for verbatim moderator text?

_
"I am seeking identification of specific examples
of the moderator behavior to which Phil Innes

objects." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Is he asking because he can't view them himself?

_
I have viewed lots of moderator text, but only Phil Innes
can identify the moderator text to which he objects.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Or is he asking because he doubts why members
7 reacted as he did?

_
Again, Donna Alarie and Timothy Sawmiller were reacting
to notes of Beatriz Marinello and Herbert Vaughn
(respectively). Neither Beatriz Marinello nor Herbert
Vaughn is the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 And what does 'seeking identification' actually mean?

_
"If Phil Innes has trouble with ordinary words
in English he should consult a dictionary."
- Louis Blair (14 Mar 2006 12:25:52 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 So when Louis Blair subtracts what I already wrote from
7 what he wants to know, I presume he will then share
7 whatever still puzzles him in clear-text, so to speak,
7 as well as stating why he wants someone else to provide
7 him with that information, especially since he seems in
7 so much private doubt of its veracity.
7
7 It is not surprising that after several thousand words
7 already, Louis Blair has not said why he is asking
7 anyone anything. ...

_
I think public attacks should be accompanied by specifics.
Phil Innes wouldn't want us to think that he was being
deliberately vague, would he?

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):

7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
7 announcements ...

_
The Forum contains a huge amount of material. If Phil
Innes is objecting to moderator action in there, more
specifics will be needed in order for people to know
what he is complaining about.
_
I have seen an "announcements" page that contained
a link for details about the recent resignation. Is that
where the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner" can be accessed? (The "report" begins: "On
Dec. 4, 2006, USCF Executive Board Secretary Robert
B. Tanner resigned. ...")

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):

7 ... I already wrote these references and Blair cut them. ...

_
Would Phil Innes care to be specific about which previous
Phil Innes note supposedly referred to "their public
announcements"?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):

7 ... [Wasn't Taylor Kingston] the guy who wrote me about
7 what banned authors should have no right of reply at
7 ChessCafe's own forum? ...

_
"... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
banning, and I have never said you have written them
'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor
Kingston) (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:15:14 GMT)

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 ... I just read the moderator's ex culpa, "EDIT: I just re-read
7 this and it seems that the tone is more negative than I really
7 intended. I've made harsher statements than were really
7 called for, and I appologize. Please take the above comments
7 as a simple "disagreement" and not the "condemnation" that
7 they sound like."

_
That is a Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:19 pm quote of Herbert Vaughn.
Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 Sloans comments are supported by Ron Suarez and also
7 a USCF Delegate. Another poster comments that the
7 moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'.

_
That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:46 pm Timothy Sawmiller
note, asserting that one could infer that Herbert Vaughn
said Joe Lux made an unjustified attack against Mr.
Korenman. Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 But this moderator [who BTBW sent me an e-mail] is
7 not quite catching the drift as has replied to that comment,
7 "Other than showing yourself to be educationally impaired,
7 what purpose does your post serve?"

_
That is a Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:05 pm quote of Herbert Vaughn.
(He was denying that he said Joe Lux made an unjustified
attack against Mr. Korenman.) Herbert Vaughn is not the
moderator.
_
By the way, previously (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:52:36 GM),
Phil Innes tried to have us believe that Herbert Vaughn had
"jumped all over" a question by Timothy Sawmiller. I
noted that Phil Innes did not identify the queston. Now
Phil Innes quietly drops the jumped-all-over-a-question claim.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 and this is where the comemnt occurs: 'Nice. What a
7 pleasant experience it must be to have a conversation with
7 you! I express a simple opinion, with a little humor added,
7 about what could be inferred from your remarks, and this
7 is your response. Serves me right I guess, for even thinking
7 about expressing an opinon on these bastions of free
7 expression.' ...

_
That is the Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:31 pm Timothy Sawmiller
reaction to the note Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:05 pm note of
Herbert Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 ... I am noticing what other people are saying; here is yet
7 another voice: "I think that you hate Sam Sloan so much,
7 that anything that he does say must be attacked."

_
That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:49 pm Douglas Forsythe
note addressing Herbert Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not
the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 Now Nolan has kicked in to ask about other disciplinary
7 measures to be taken against Sam Sloan. ...

_
What I see is a Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:21 pm Mike Nolan
note commenting on Sam Sloan's lack of involvement in
drafting acceptable forum usage guidelines and disciplinary
procedures. I see nothing in the note about disciplinary
measures to be taken specifically against Sam Sloan.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 ... On the next page the moderator has used outside
7 type IN RED to shout at Sam Sloan.

_
That is a Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:36 am note of Herbert Vaughn.
Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 This BIG RED is met by a new poster's comment "The
7 Tanstaafl comet is back; look at it going around the Sloan
7 star, and what a dysfunctional solar system we have."

_
That was a Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:14 am Douglas Forsythe
note addressing Herbert Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not
the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 Which obtains an apology for knee-jerk reactions and
7 'over-reations' from the [ROFL] moderator

_
Those are (approximately) Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:35 pm
quotes of Herbert Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not the
moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 But then we have thread-drift, and Bill Goichberg plus
7 other politicos begine to talk about being reimbursed for
7 expenses, and eventually fizzles when someone called
7 'rfeditor' writes [in a moderated forum] "You must know
7 as well as I do what those line items were for. I'd really
7 like to phrase this more harshly (something on the order
7 of "Are you really a moron or an amazingly lifelike
7 imitation?"), but that might be considered a personal
7 attack."
7
7 To which the Moderator [ROFL] says NOTHING.

_
John Hillery was addressing Sam Sloan who has used
the word, "stupid" more than once.

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

<who knows what?>

Phil,

Taylor is right.

Not only that, but most of your posts consist entirely of incoherent
babble. All of your posts consist mostly of incoherent babble. Some of
your posts (although the proportion is alarmingly small) contain some
information which, although barely intelligible, may be understood if
one is sufficiently persistent and inquisitive.

In short, you are very high-maintenance, and very low-mileage.

Can you not tell from the subject heading (which is your invention) why
many of us regard it as the product of a disordered mind?

You need professional psychiatric help.

Do seek it, for your own sake.

Mark

[Curious George]

Applause! Applause!

C. George

"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1166220288....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

[Chess One]

"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message

news:1166205151.3...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> Our Phil finally presents some specific quotes, after claiming he had
> already done so. So Phil, is the above supposed to be the "rash and
> offensive abuse of speech" you referred to? Sounds like a toned-down
> version of a run-of-the-mill rgcp thread.

Kerist! Kingston! I referred to the Forum in the first post! It is your
obfustication with terms such as 'claims', instead of references, and so
on - and it is your claim that even though you looked, you couldn't find 75
messages headed by Korenman's name?

ROFL

But 'sounds like' the problem is with the moderator to me, who apologised at
least twice for rash over-reactions, and unlike Kingston, writers in those
threads objected to the MODERATOR's abuse and thought the issue Marinello
raised was a substantial one, worth investigating.

ISSUE!

I happen to like Mikhail Korenman, and we have talked in person, on the
phone, and also write each other. And maybe he /is/ one of the best chess
fundraisers. What members wanted was some accountability for it - rather
than questioning the merits of Dr. K.

This also follows the rather larger award of $50,000 to the re-visioning of
publications, also issued as an 'award' and with no public bidding, and the
brief for which is in fact still secret!

Now - if Taylor Kingston can't find any issue here - that is something to do
with his own level of attention or available wits - but of course these are
substantial issues of accountability.

Is there something of content that Kingston addresses in the remains of his
his message, after making his usual insulting fuss about 'claims' and such
stuff? I wish to make a note below that follows-on with my conversations
with Randy Bauer.

>> >> and stop
>> >> your abuse in place of a little diligence, Kingston.
>>
>> > Phil, I abuse you for your _lack_ of diligence. You make charges
>> > without evidence.
>>
>> You are using the word charges again - about what other people are
>> writing.
>> But you can't figure out after looking [!] where the thread is?
>
> Phil, if you are going to make claims here about a thread on the USCF
> web-site, it is up to *_you_* to present *_here_* the parts of that
> thread you consider relevant to your claims. It is not the
> responsibility of others to establish your claims for you.

Says who? Who the hell do you think you are? If you want to verify it - then
you could go an look for yourself - but O NO, not Mr. Mouthy - he first
calls people names, then suggests the matter needs proving to him, and all
the while is too LAZY to check anything himself!

Even when he sees it he can't get the point - 'run of the mill' he says. The
issue is about awarding money without bids, or even any means of
measurement.

The issue is about this continuous practice. Even though the $50,000 was a
scandal, here we go again with another board-initiated award.

The issue is about people like Randy Bauer who say they will bring more
accountability to all levels of USCF - so that there could be re-established
some level of confidence in how it could use money - and, while everyone
except Taylor Kingston and Louis Blair, don't understand this point, the
real question for Bauer is how he is going to achieve accountability?

That's the political hot-potato.

--------

>>
>> To which the Moderator [ROFL] says NOTHING.
>
> If the above is supposed to establish our Phil's claim of "rash and
> offensive abuse of speech," I am not terribly impressed, since it is
> considerably less rash and offensive than what he himself habitually
> writes here.

Kingston can't address the topic any more than he can attend to his own role
in encouraging fresh air in chess forums - he neither affirms nor denies
that he thought even authors should not be able to respond to attacks on
their books at the palce where he worked!

That is his commitmanet to this topic, he is such a light-weight he can't do
his own research, always suggests that other's work is negligent before he
knows anything, and when he does know something, doesn't get the point and
immediately returns to as much persoanlity diatribe as he can get away with.

> Furthermore, I see nothing in the above at all relevant to the claim
> of "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner."

You'd have to look in the right place Kingston. But this time, do your own
homework - find what USCF said about Tanner, and THEN tell us your opinion.

> Given our Phil's track
> record as a journalist, such a charge from him is rather like Khruschev
> calling someone a Communist.

Of course, if you really contest something on-topic instead of these usual
vague smears we could compare what you say with what you do.

And on the topic of bastions of free expression - I can post your own
e-mails here - shall we start with book banning at chesscafe and your
attitudes? Or will you snip this reference again? If you want to do that,
start another thread - then we will look at 'track records'! Otherwise you
have neither addressed or even understood this thread, and continued with
your own idea of journalism, adding to your list of those who do present
topics you don't understand by calling them;

Hitler, Mussolini, a murderer, degrees of insanity, drug use, Stalin...

That's the challenge Kingston - write to the point - but if you are content
with writing abuse only, I'll go ahead and make it even clearer ;)

Phil Innes

[Chess One]

"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message

news:1166206076.9...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Phil Innes is now accusing me of snipping something that
> was not there. The Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT Phil
> Innes note did not contain "what USCF members said at
> Nolandland". Phil Innes is probably thinking of his Wed,
> 13 Dec 2006 15:52:36 GMT note

You might be amazed, Louis, that I am not thinking of a post made at
16:25:41 GMT or even one made at 15:52:36 GMT on the same day.

What I am thinking is what /your/ point is. Do you, in fact, have one? Or
are you content to say that other people are vague?

Phil Innes

[Chess One]

"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message

news:1166208277.0...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
>
> 7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
> 7 announcements ...
>
> _
> The Forum contains a huge amount of material. If Phil
> Innes is objecting to moderator action in there, more
> specifics will be needed in order for people to know
> what he is complaining about.

"If" says Louis Blair.

"If ... objecting". Does this mean that Louis Blair can't tell if I am
objecting to something, or what the objection is?

Since I have written the complaints of people actually in the forum about
the moderator, and about the issue itself, are these insufficient
'specifics' for Louis Blair?

Since I read through all the messages [75 at the time] is this too onerous
for other people? Or should I paste all of them here to say them 20 seconds
of trouble going to the site and reading for themselves?

"If" reporting this issue is 'objecting to the moderator' and is not a
report, but 'what he is complaining about', is this really 'for people to
know,' as Louis writes above - or for himself?

"If" all the people who DID complain in the thread are not to be noticed,
nor what they said noticed - why should anyone present this to the attention
of Louis Blair?

> I have seen an "announcements" page that contained
> a link for details about the recent resignation. Is that
> where the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
> Tanner" can be accessed? (The "report" begins: "On
> Dec. 4, 2006, USCF Executive Board Secretary Robert
> B. Tanner resigned. ...")

I DID write it here before, but some reprobate cut it, Louis! "If" you are
really interested, I say the same to you as I said to Kingston - go find it,
and IF you have something to say as result of your own diligence, then do
write again.

Phil Innes

--------

> 7 ... [Wasn't Taylor Kingston] the guy who wrote me about
> 7 what banned authors should have no right of reply at
> 7 ChessCafe's own forum? ...
>
> _
> "... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
> banning, and I have never said you have written them
> 'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor
> Kingston) (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:15:14 GMT)

IF Louis Blair questions if Kinston titled his pieces 'about book banning'
he might differentiate that from the content of his messages - in fact, IF
he were interested he could ask Kingston directly what his opinions are and
were - even to the specific extent IF authors could respond in the same
forum as their books are being criticised.

But I rather doubt IF Louis Blair will do that, or IF he is actually
interested in the topic, since I do not understand IF he is interested in
any topic.

Phil Innes
>

[Chess One]

No content in this message Houlsby. Only net-nazi abuse.

If you can't attempt the topic, then you are entirely ignorable by virtue of
having no interest in talking of chess.

PI

"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1166220288....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

[The Historian]

Wonderful, Mark, wonderful!

[Chess One]

"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message

news:1166234583.7...@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Zing!! Louis, I would say you have just scored a big fat bullseye on
> Phil's flummery. Ka-ching!

The NOISE

No chess content in this message from the lazy-duo, who have now stopped
disputing my 'claim' that the thread exists, and have now gone on to dispute
items of its content, and swami-like suggesting what I must think of it,
rather than what USCF members wrote of what they think - and now complaining
I have not yet answered all their questions!

I thought this was about being able to speak to awarding yet another fat sum
without a bid - apparently not - the entire thing is about me! according to
Blair and Kinston, but then, they can't ever find a reason to say their own
point, or even if they have one.

Blair notes that Vaughn is not the moderator, by title, by I say Vaughn is,
in effect. The real moderator permits Vaughn to do as he pleases, which is
to say - there is no real moderation at that forum, except political
moderation.

What Kingston has to do with moderation Louis Blair doesn't know, since
Blair won't ask Kingston if he thinks that even authors should not have a
say at Chesscafe.

That's as much interest as these 2 have in 'the topic'.

The ISSUE

The implication for Randy Bauer is that he is going to run on a plank that
no one wants - no one is even curious why 10 grand should be handed out
without any performance criteria or checks and balances, presumably because
they were not interested in 50 grand also 'awarded' rather than bid, for the
great-makeover.

He would also be wrong to run on accountability factors which do not have to
do with money, since no one at all has expressed any curiosity that the
ratings department could have processed Tanner's playing record, and someone
[but whom] could have even awarded him a life-title - all without presumably
scrutinising the material, though also presumably, they were all paid their
salary for something?

Phil Innes

>> the word "stupid" more than once.
>

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

> No content in this message Houlsby. Only net-nazi abuse.
>

Oh I assure you I am anti-Nazi, pro-rationality. Notwithstanding my own
undeniable occasional tendency to the irrational, that is.

> If you can't attempt the topic, then you are entirely ignorable by virtue of
> having no interest in talking of chess.
>

If it were even remotely true that I have no interest in talking of
chess, then you may, indeed, have a point. However, it is very easy for
me to demonstrate that it is not true at all. How many recent examples
of my discussing chess would you like me to cite?

As for my "attempting the topic", well, my little entreaty to which you
have just replied was intended as a (probably futile) gesture to nudge
you in its general direction.

Notice the number of endorsements my entreaties have received.

I'm serious dude. You need help. Really.

MH

> PI
>
<snip>

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

> "Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
> news:1166208277.0...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
> >
> > 7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
> > 7 announcements ...
> >
> > _
> > The Forum contains a huge amount of material. If Phil
> > Innes is objecting to moderator action in there, more
> > specifics will be needed in order for people to know
> > what he is complaining about.
>
> "If" says Louis Blair.
>
> "If ... objecting". Does this mean that Louis Blair can't tell if I am
> objecting to something, or what the objection is?
>

No, it's a polite way of saying: "Put up or shut up, you disingenuous
fuck."

> Since I have written the complaints of people actually in the forum about
> the moderator, and about the issue itself, are these insufficient
> 'specifics' for Louis Blair?
>

Given that you are now writing about goings-on *in a different forum*
it *is* necessary for you to be *absolutely specific* about *every
reference* to the other forum, yes. Taylor already explained that to
you, but, typically, you have evidently chosen to ignore him. Just in
case you try to argue that in fact Taylor never said any such thing,

here's what he wrote, on Friday, December 15th 2006 at 5:52pm:

"Phil, if you are going to make claims here about a thread on the USCF
web-site, it is up to *_you_* to present *_here_* the parts of that
thread you consider relevant to your claims. It is not the
responsibility of others to establish your claims for you."

--Taylor Kingston

Here's a link to the post in which he wrote that:

http://masl.to/?A2274316E

> Since I read through all the messages [75 at the time] is this too onerous
> for other people?

Yes, certainly too onerous, you idiot. Like Taylor said, if you
introduce the topic into a *different forum* then very definitely you
have placed the onus upon *yourself* to do *all* of the legwork. All of
it.

> Or should I paste all of them here to say them 20 seconds
> of trouble going to the site and reading for themselves?
>

Yes, do that, and raise points as you see fit. In other words, debate
like an adult who is not seriously deranged.

> "If" reporting this issue is 'objecting to the moderator' and is not a
> report, but 'what he is complaining about', is this really 'for people to
> know,' as Louis writes above - or for himself?
>

The former. I'm on tentahooks, here.

> "If" all the people who DID complain in the thread are not to be noticed,
> nor what they said noticed - why should anyone present this to the attention
> of Louis Blair?
>

No reason other than that YOU decided that it was worth importing the
issue to RGCP.

Therefore the onus is upon YOU to do *whatever* Dr. Blair or anybody
else asks in order to clarify the matter, and to reach a satisfactory
conclusion. Under the circumstances Dr. Blair's post is not remotely
unreasonable.

Put up or shut up, you disingenuous fuck.

> > I have seen an "announcements" page that contained
> > a link for details about the recent resignation. Is that
> > where the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
> > Tanner" can be accessed? (The "report" begins: "On
> > Dec. 4, 2006, USCF Executive Board Secretary Robert
> > B. Tanner resigned. ...")
>
> I DID write it here before, but some reprobate cut it, Louis!

If you wrote it here before, it would be impossible for anyone,
reprobate or no, to cut it. It still would be here. The only messages
which disappear from the Google archive are ones which the author
requests ought to be removed after a certain number of days.

To demonstrate this, here is a link to my very first post to Usenet:

http://masl.to/?Z5771116E

> "If" you are
> really interested, I say the same to you as I said to Kingston - go find it,
> and IF you have something to say as result of your own diligence, then do
> write again.
>
> Phil Innes
>

IF you intend not to demonstrate, once again, that you are not
deserving of opprobrium, then YOU ***must*** do ALL of the work here.

Posting as you have in this thread, you have taken upon yourself
certain responsibilities.

For once in your life, be responsible.

<snip>

Mark Houlsby

[Chess One]

"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message

news:1166289221....@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> No content in this message Houlsby. Only net-nazi abuse.
>>
>
> Oh I assure you I am anti-Nazi, pro-rationality. Notwithstanding my own
> undeniable occasional tendency to the irrational, that is.

See then, if you could attempt the subject matter.

>> If you can't attempt the topic, then you are entirely ignorable by virtue
>> of
>> having no interest in talking of chess.
>>
>
> If it were even remotely true that I have no interest in talking of
> chess, then you may, indeed, have a point. However, it is very easy for
> me to demonstrate that it is not true at all. How many recent examples
> of my discussing chess would you like me to cite?

I am not making an request as much as stating an observation

> As for my "attempting the topic", well, my little entreaty to which you
> have just replied was intended as a (probably futile) gesture to nudge
> you in its general direction.
>
> Notice the number of endorsements my entreaties have received.

LOL

> I'm serious dude. You need help. Really.

No content again from Houlsby! Who here even justifies writing ad hom trash
and earning his appelation by stating that what he does is popular! Heil!

Did you really not want to discuss the topic Houlsby; there are several
possibilities, not exclusive of what I have written about 'awards' without
responsibility, or political favorites being preferred to those scape-goated
to some cause?

And spare me your stupid, juvenile concern! If you want to write on an issue
I assume you will do so, not say that not doing so is popular, therefore
other people need help, etc = that defines a net-nazi to a T.

PI

> MH
>
>> PI
>>
> <snip>
>

[Rob]

Dear Mark,

I hope you are well. It has been so very long since your last book was
reviewed after publication. Perhaps the next will be better received
than the last and your need to attempt to attack in a public newsgroup
will diminish. Such actions are indeed a waste of talent and we all
hope that you will come back to the light side of the force.

I am sorry to make this entreaty public . I do so as I am unsure if
your email as is listed in the newsgroup is accurate or not. So many
people are cowards as to who they really are and how to contact them
directly.

No venom is intended in this posting. I would just hope that those like
yourself, who have a true gift would cease wasting their time in
pointless attacks on others.

Rob

[Taylor Kingston]

On Dec 16, 1:48 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Did you really not want to discuss the topic Houlsby;

Phil, when your own handling of the original topic is so egregiously
bad, your handling of the topic naturally becomes the topic.

> there are several
> possibilities, not exclusive of what I have written about 'awards' without
> responsibility, or political favorites being preferred to those scape-goated
> to some cause?

In this thread, you have presented nothing to justify those
aspersions. Instead you have presented nonsense, misrepresenting what
various people have said, and misidentifying who said what. You accused
USCF's moderator of "abusing speech," yet the supposedly abusive
statements you have cited were not made by any moderator. If you're
going to be so be so sloppy, you will naturally attract criticism.
You seem to feel that presenting evidence is such an onerous
inconvenience, and a matter of such trivial unimportance, that you are
justified in casting aspersions without it. That is offensive to all
fair-minded rec.games.chess readers, and makes you their target.
And when you do present "evidence," it is usually so disorganized,
dubious, and irrelevant that the only thing it evinces is the sorry
state of your thought processes.
There may well be favoritism and scapegoating going on in today's
USCF, but you, Phil, are definitely not the man to uncover it. You make
Inspector Clouseau look like Sherlock Holmes.

[Chess One]

"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message

news:1166292182.9...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...

>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> "Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1166208277.0...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> > Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
>> >
>> > 7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
>> > 7 announcements ...
>> >
>> > _
>> > The Forum contains a huge amount of material. If Phil
>> > Innes is objecting to moderator action in there, more
>> > specifics will be needed in order for people to know
>> > what he is complaining about.
>>
>> "If" says Louis Blair.
>>
>> "If ... objecting". Does this mean that Louis Blair can't tell if I am
>> objecting to something, or what the objection is?
>>
>
> No, it's a polite way of saying: "Put up or shut up, you disingenuous
> fuck."

Houlsby continues in his third succesive post to ignore what I wrote and
conduct himself as a net-nazi, without any attempt to address the subject.

If he doesn't understand what has been written he is perhaps as pointless as
Blair himself. But he cannot even condescend to tell us why he is
interested - but COMMANDS other people to do something for him ;))

>> Since I have written the complaints of people actually in the forum about
>> the moderator, and about the issue itself, are these insufficient
>> 'specifics' for Louis Blair?
>>
>
> Given that you are now writing about goings-on *in a different forum*
> it *is* necessary for you to be *absolutely specific* about *every
> reference* to the other forum, yes.

So you think I should post 75 messages from USCF? Why do you think so? Is
what I wrote ACTUALLY IN DISPUTE?

> Taylor already explained that to
> you, but, typically, you have evidently chosen to ignore him. Just in
> case you try to argue that in fact Taylor never said any such thing,
> here's what he wrote, on Friday, December 15th 2006 at 5:52pm:
>
> "Phil, if you are going to make claims here about a thread on the USCF
> web-site, it is up to *_you_* to present *_here_* the parts of that
> thread you consider relevant to your claims. It is not the
> responsibility of others to establish your claims for you."
> --Taylor Kingston

If you can't bother to look at what I initially wrote, or note that it was
cut - what is your point Houslby? You call people other people 'a fuck' but
can't condescend to say what is in question or why you are interested in it?

> Here's a link to the post in which he wrote that:
>
> http://masl.to/?A2274316E
>
>> Since I read through all the messages [75 at the time] is this too
>> onerous
>> for other people?
>
> Yes, certainly too onerous, you idiot. Like Taylor said, if you
> introduce the topic into a *different forum* then very definitely you
> have placed the onus upon *yourself* to do *all* of the legwork. All of
> it.

For you? You have got to be kidding yourself, your Highness! I ain't your
vassal, nor his.

>> Or should I paste all of them here to say them 20 seconds
>> of trouble going to the site and reading for themselves?
>>
>
> Yes, do that, and raise points as you see fit. In other words, debate
> like an adult who is not seriously deranged.

For you? You are just an abuse merchant.

>> "If" reporting this issue is 'objecting to the moderator' and is not a
>> report, but 'what he is complaining about', is this really 'for people to
>> know,' as Louis writes above - or for himself?
>>
>
> The former. I'm on tentahooks, here.
>
>> "If" all the people who DID complain in the thread are not to be noticed,
>> nor what they said noticed - why should anyone present this to the
>> attention
>> of Louis Blair?
>>
>
> No reason other than that YOU decided that it was worth importing the
> issue to RGCP.

As I thought. You have no reason of your own, no wit to understand the
issue, and like to tell other people what to do and say fuck a lot, as if
this is some sort of reason that people should obey you.

> Therefore the onus is upon YOU to do *whatever* Dr. Blair or anybody
> else asks in order to clarify the matter, and to reach a satisfactory
> conclusion. Under the circumstances Dr. Blair's post is not remotely
> unreasonable.
>
> Put up or shut up, you disingenuous fuck.

You should get over yourself a bit. Otherwise people might think you were an
ignorant lout whining out loud as usual for some unstated reason

Phil Innes

[The Historian]

Amazing. The Business Manager of Chessville is yet again attacking a
Chessville author in public.

[Chess One]

"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message

news:1166297836.6...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> On Dec 16, 1:48 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Did you really not want to discuss the topic Houlsby;
>
> Phil, when your own handling of the original topic is so egregiously
> bad, your handling of the topic naturally becomes the topic.

Kingston, what topic are YOU writing about? As usual you start your post
with ad hom references, and I just can't wait to see if you will come clean
about your own attitudes...

>> there are several
>> possibilities, not exclusive of what I have written about 'awards'
>> without
>> responsibility, or political favorites being preferred to those
>> scape-goated
>> to some cause?
>
> In this thread, you have presented nothing to justify those
> aspersions.

He CUT IT ! - yet again - he cut his own attitude to forums and if authors
should be banned! HE CUT IT again!

Now he cuts my replies that I DID cite the forum, and he CUT my reference to
what his interest in it could be, and he CUT the refutation of his 'claims'
since he CANNOT DISPUTE this is what OTHER people wrote. He CUT the
reference to not being able to find reference to Tanner, and continues with
his slime. He even cut the fact that he couldn't find the thread in
question, even after looking.

And for all this he calls me names.

> Instead you have presented nonsense, misrepresenting what
> various people have said, and misidentifying who said what. You accused
> USCF's moderator of "abusing speech," yet the supposedly abusive
> statements you have cited were not made by any moderator. If you're
> going to be so be so sloppy, you will naturally attract criticism.
> You seem to feel that presenting evidence is such an onerous
> inconvenience,

I 'seem' !

YOU CUT the evidence. You cut the references. You hate the idea of
presenting any reason for your own slagging of anybody who writes in the
open.

You do not 'seem' to write shit about everybody in public and private, you
are seen to do so.

If you had any questions on the issues raised then you would not have CUT
them. But you, Taylor Kingston are not that sort of person, and writing shit
is all you do, recently coming out and doing it in public, because you are a
dissapointed discredited hack, compeltely bent out of shape because you were
superceded as a chess writer both at Chesscafe and with publishers [ie, on
Benko].

I wonder why?

Phil Innes

[Chess One]

"The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166302560.8...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

yeah, we are that sort of place, we even published you

but let us divert the subject even more - why not? why talk about corruption
at uscf when no one at all is interested in it?

no one has actually disputed that anything i wrote is untrue - it is simply
implied that it is not true, and rude people who command others to serve
their lazy curiosity, is all there is

why any of these people have written at all is unknown, since they can
easily cite anti-semiticm like brock and brennan, to fascists in europe like
kingston, and we must suppose that mark houslby is the 'fucking' queen of
the may

since none of these 'fuckers' to use houlsby's phrase has expressed the
slightest interest in examing the content of the issue, then i think i would
refer anyone to had such an interest to uscf's forum so that they can see
for themselves

here, it is enough to say that the opinion of apparent indifference to the
topics raised in the forum, are differently represented there, by people who
plainly resent such political largesse, without even attempting any
accounting for their actions

phil innes

[Mark Houlsby]

Rob wrote:

> Dear Mark,
>
> I hope you are well. It has been so very long since your last book was
> reviewed after publication.

It has. Don't worry, I intend to resume the practice.

> Perhaps the next will be better received
> than the last and your need to attempt to attack in a public newsgroup
> will diminish.

Perhaps. That rather depends upon your buddy Innes and you, doesn't it?

> Such actions are indeed a waste of talent and we all
> hope that you will come back to the light side of the force.
>

LOL don't tell me you actually *believe* that adolescent nonsense?
(Don't get me wrong, I was 14 in 1977, and I'm especially enamoured of
what are now episodes IV and VI).

> I am sorry to make this entreaty public .

Don't be.

> I do so as I am unsure if
> your email as is listed in the newsgroup is accurate or not.

Well, you should be sure, since if it were not, your last attempt to
email me would have bounced. It did not bounce. DUH!

> So many
> people are cowards as to who they really are and how to contact them
> directly.
>

Such people need not concern us here....

> No venom is intended in this posting. I would just hope that those like
> yourself, who have a true gift would cease wasting their time in
> pointless attacks on others.
>

Stick with me, and you'll learn where this is leading. BTW, in posting
like this, you're not helping your buddy Phil, AT ALL. Quite the
opposite.

If you know him personally, if you see him from day to day (as has been
hinted in these groups), *do* persuade him to see a good psychiatrist.
It's what he really needs.

Mark

[Duncan Oxley]

"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote

> You need professional psychiatric help.
>
> Do seek it, for your own sake.
>
> Mark
>

Hear hear!

--Duncan

[Mark Houlsby]

Phil,

In this post:

http://masl.to/?H2BA3416E

...you have just complained again that I never address the topic.

Very well... here I shall attempt to do just that:

Shall we begin?

Chess One wrote:

> "Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
> news:1166206076.9...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Phil Innes is now accusing me of snipping something that
> > was not there. The Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT Phil
> > Innes note did not contain "what USCF members said at
> > Nolandland". Phil Innes is probably thinking of his Wed,
> > 13 Dec 2006 15:52:36 GMT note
>
> You might be amazed, Louis, that I am not thinking of a post made at
> 16:25:41 GMT or even one made at 15:52:36 GMT on the same day.
>
> What I am thinking is what /your/ point is. Do you, in fact, have one? Or
> are you content to say that other people are vague?
>
> Phil Innes
>

Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this one, shall we?

You just wrote to Dr. Blair, above:

"What I am thinking is what /your/ point is. Do you, in fact, have
one?"

Good questions both. Dr. Blair's first post in this thread was this
one:

http://masl.to/?O2976216E

He was replying to this post of yours:

http://masl.to/?E1C72416E

...in which you wrote (at the beginning of the post):

"... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the

$10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how

it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which

even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive

abuse of speech."

Now, in reply to this, in his post http://masl.to/?O2976216E Dr. Blair
wrote:

"Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject

with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are

the examples?"

Let's deconstruct this in a manner which might make even Jacques
Derrida blush, shall we?

>From the top:

"I looked at the USCF website this morning..." (PI)

Presumably you meant the morning of Wednesday, 13 December 2006, which
was the date upon which you posted the earlier of the two messages
which we are deconstructing (the later of the two being Dr. Blair's
reply).

"...and reported on the $10,000 'award'..." (PI)

Why the quotes around the word: 'award', Phil? Explain yourself.

"...which is this week's scandal." (PI)

Ok, let's step back for a moment, and examine what appears to have just
happened:

You, Phil Innes, have evidently made a leap, and characterised the
apportioning of the $10,000 as a scandal.

Do you have irrefutable evidence of its being a scandal? If so, what is
it? Where might it be found?

You continued:

"and also how it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator -
which
even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive abuse of
speech."

Hmmm let's see.... maybe this is an attempt to infer that even what is,
in your understanding, the most greatly-endowed pachyderm which the
evolutionary process has placed in our midst (so to speak) would be
severely chafed by what you had read just that morning in the Usenet
group which is both exclusively devoted to USCF politics, and bears the
Federation's name. Is that a reasonable representation? If yes, just
say yes. If no, say no *and explain why not*.

Now, here's the thing. Thus far, beyond the most cursory of
introductions you have presented absolutely no clue with respect to
what exactly it was you had just read that morning. All we have, so
far, is an oblique reference to a "scandal" (which was your
characterisation of the... whatever it was/is...

To continue, then, we reach Dr. Blair's first entry into this
particular conversation:

"Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject

with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are

the examples?" (LB)

Now, if I understood you correctly, your characterisation of the
goings-on in the USCF group as: "rash and offensive abuse of speech"
may have been no more than an attempt to register your evident disgust
at the *fact* of the ten thousand dollars' having been apportioned in
the manner in which it had. Is that correct? If it is, then it would
appear that when he wrote: "Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator
treated the subject with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"?" Dr.
Blair was genuinely confused about your motive or motives for employing
the phrase: "rash and offensive abuse of speech".

To hazard a guess (and it's no more than a guess) one suspects that
perhaps your point may have been that such apportionment (of the ten
thousand dollars) was, in some sense, an abuse of freedom of
expression. Is that how you thought about it?

Sparing his blushes, Dr. Blair is a pretty smart guy, perhaps he is
smarter than most folks. Certainly he is smarter than I am, but then I
have met eggplants smarter than I am.

Nevertheless, if my analysis thus far is anywhere near to being
accurate, even a pretty smart guy like Dr. Blair was evidently *quite
at a loss* to discern your true meaning. Perhaps I have been, too. If
so, please explain precisely how...

Anyways, to continue the process of deconstruction:

"I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,

which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal,..." (PI)

"What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes

wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately

vague, would he?" (LB)

I must admit that I should like you to be very much more specific about
the particular instance of "...less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner,".

What was this report? Who wrote it? Where? Are you able to reproduce
it? Are you able to provide us with a hyperlink? What was its
substance? What is your view of the specifics of whatever it was that
was written by whoever wrote whatever it was that they wrote?

I'm afraid that--like Dr. Blair--I'm groping in the dark, here, I'd
appreciate your flipping the switch and assailing my ocular nerve with
the most egregious incandescence. Do you think that you might be able
to do that for me, please?

To continue:

"... The per capita rate is interesting, and if extrapolated
here would have produced 80 GMs. I think actual
production in the same period was for home-grown GMs,
UK = 20, USA = 2. Meanwhile Poland has produced 20
GMs from an even smaller pop. than UK since the wall
came down. ... " (PI)

To clarify, evidently here you (and, before you the estimable Mr.
Bauer) are describing the goings-on at the start of the 1970s, and,
perhaps more specifically, the boom which was precipitated by Fischer's
having won the World Championship in 1972. Right?

So...your point appears to be that on a per capita basis, contrary to
Mr. Bauer's rather more upbeat appraisal, the statistics (as you
believe them to have been, although you did not quote a source) suggest
that small countries like England an Poland made more of what one might
term "the Fischer boom", than the United States did. Is that correct?

Interestingly, you note the haemorrhaging of a significant minority of
Poland's population "...since the [Berlin] wall came down." ...an event
which occurred some seventeen years *after* Fischer's having gained the
world crown. Is that correct?

If it is, what is the connection between the reduced Polish population
post-1989 and the goings-on in the United States, England and Poland
right after Fischer's historic victory?

Were you making a specific point, there?

to continue:

"In Europe, playing chess professionally is a
viable occupation." - Jennifer Shahade (quoted by LB)

Apparently, Dr. Blair's motive in quoting the estimable Ms. Shahade may
have been to convey to you the *fact* that in Europe it is possible to
make a living playing chess. Even today.

Does it not strike you that this might tend to reinforce the argument
which was put forward by you? Certainly, it strikes me that way.

To continue:

"... No one seems interested in learning anything about
the UK club system, or whatever they did in Poland/ ..." (PI)

Here, you are evidently asserting that, in your view, there is more
than a general disinterest in whatever it was that went on in the UK
and/or Poland at the time. You seem to imply that implementing similar
measures in the US might, in your view, exert a positive effect.

Is that correct?

Finally, for this post:

"What can the USCF do about this?" - Louis
Blair (30 Mar 2006 07:16:13 -0800)

Dr. Blair quotes a post which he made on 30th March of this year which
indicates his having expressed just such an interest at that time. This
being so, it disproves your assertion, above, that: "...No one seems
interested...".

How am I doing so far, Phil?

Am I addressing the topic?

Would you care to clarify any misinterpretations/omissions on my part.

Please don't be afraid to be absolutely brutal, but please, whatever
else you do, be clear (bear in mind that I have known eggplants which
are smarter than I am).

Reply to me as you would to any *complete imbecile* for that, I fear,
is exactly what I may be.

TIA for your candour.

Mark

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 Kerist! Kingston! I referred to the Forum in the first post! It
7 is your obfustication with terms such as 'claims', instead of
7 references, and so on - and it is your claim that even though
7 you looked, you couldn't find 75 messages headed by
7 Korenman's name?
7
7 ROFL

_
There is no trouble finding notes about Korenman. The difficulty
is trying to identify the behavior by the moderator to which Phil
Innes objects.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 But 'sounds like' the problem is with the moderator to me,
7 who apologised at least twice for rash over-reactions,

_
So far, I have only seen Phil Innes identify an apology from

Herbert Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 and unlike Kingston, writers in those threads objected to
7 the MODERATOR's abuse

_
Phil Innes produced quotes of writers objecting to Herbert

Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 and thought the issue Marinello raised was a substantial
7 one, worth investigating. ...

_
Who maintains that the issue is not worth investigating?
_
"... Now that Beatriz has been forthcoming with the
real information, we can discuss the matter and
reach our individual conclusions. I'm not a big fan
of Beatriz on several matters, but she was right to
bring the information forward and shine a little light
on the situation!" - Herbert Vaughn (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 1:19 pm)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 ... Now - if Taylor Kingston can't find any issue here ...

_
The difficulty I have is finding justification for the Phil
Innes criticism of the moderator.

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Dec 2006 09:52:31 -0800):
7 ... Phil, if you are going to make claims here about a
7 thread on the USCF web-site, it is up to *_you_* to
7 present *_here_* the parts of that thread you consider
7 relevant to your claims. It is not the responsibility of
7 others to establish your claims for you. ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 ... Says who? Who the hell do you think you are? If
7 you want to verify it - then you could go an look for
7 yourself ...

_
Looking at the USCF forum will not, by itself, reveal that
Phil Innes is referring to Herbert Vaughn as the moderator.
We learn that by seeing something specific written by
Phil Innes.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 ... The issue is about people like Randy Bauer who say
7 they will bring more accountability to all levels of USCF
7 - so that there could be re-established some level of
7 confidence in how it could use money - and, while
7 everyone except Taylor Kingston and Louis Blair, don't
7 understand this point, ...

_
What I do not understand is the Phil Innes complaint about
the moderator.

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Dec 2006 09:52:31 -0800):
7 ... Furthermore, I see nothing in the above at all relevant
7 to the claim of "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner."

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 ... You'd have to look in the right place Kingston. But
7 this time, do your own homework - find what USCF said
7 about Tanner, and THEN tell us your opinion.

_
Why should anyone have to guess what Phil Innes is
complaining about? Phil Innes is the one making the
public attack. If Phil Innes is willing to consider Herbert
Vaughn to be the moderator, who knows what he would
choose to regard as something that "USCF said"?

_
Phil Innes wrote (to Taylor Kingston)
(Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 ... I can post your own e-mails here - shall we start with
7 book banning at chesscafe and your attitudes? ...

[Mark Houlsby]

Ok, Phil.

I note your repeated entreaties to me to address the topic. To this
end, I have posted a message here:

http://masl.to/?O3AC2216E

It's at the end of the subthread headed: "Blair-Fest 06, was The
Channing Four - Mr Bauer"

It represents an attempt to address the topic, as you entreat.

Read it and reply to it, please. I hope, eventually, to understand both
these goings-on, and your view of the same.

Mark

[Louis Blair]

I wrote (15 Dec 2006 10:07:56 -0800):
7 Phil Innes is now accusing me of snipping something that
7 was not there. The Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT Phil
7 Innes note did not contain "what USCF members said at
7 Nolandland". Phil Innes is probably thinking of his Wed,
7 13 Dec 2006 15:52:36 GMT note that he posted in another
7 thread ("these bastions of free expression"). THAT note
7 DID contain a Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm quote of Donna
7 Alarie (part of a reaction to a Beatriz Marinello note), and a
7 Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:31 pm quote of Timothy Sawmiller (part
7 of a reaction to a Herbert Vaughn note). I dealt with those
7 quotes in my notes in THAT thread. Neither quote expressed
7 disapproval of any specific action by the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:42:51 GMT):

7 You might be amazed, Louis, that I am not thinking of a post
7 made at 16:25:41 GMT or even one made at 15:52:36 GMT
7 on the same day.

_
It would not amaze me to learn that Phil Innes was not
thinking of anything specific while making his snipping
charge.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:42:51 GMT):

7 What I am thinking is what /your/ point is. Do you, in fact,
7 have one?

_
The point above is to note that Phil Innes was accusing
me of snipping something that he had, in fact, not put in
the notes in this thread to which I was responding.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:42:51 GMT):

7 Or are you content to say that other people are vague?

_
That is not my only comment, but it is certainly one
of them. Phil Innes himself has considered it worthwhile
to complain about someone being vague.

[Mark Houlsby]

The Historian wrote:

> Amazing. The Business Manager of Chessville is yet again attacking a
> Chessville author in public.

Maybe it's a hint that some copy is past due...

I get the message [...he leaves to resume work upon the latest
review...]

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

So... you're asserting that what you wrote is untrue, and nobody has
diputed that fact. Interesting.

> - it is simply
> implied that it is not true, and rude people who command others to serve
> their lazy curiosity, is all there is
>

Not so. See: http://masl.to/?O3AC2216E

> why any of these people have written at all is unknown, since they can
> easily cite anti-semiticm like brock and brennan,

Ummm... Brennen? The Historian?

> to fascists in europe like
> kingston,

Taylor is Fascist? Where is the evidence?

> and we must suppose that mark houslby is the 'fucking' queen of
> the may
>

If you are going to insult me, Phil, I *insist* upon your spelling my
name correctly.
You see, if you don't (and you didn't here) some poor innocent named
"mark houslby" may one day get it in the neck. You wouldn't want that,
would you? Would you?

> since none of these 'fuckers' to use houlsby's phrase has expressed the
> slightest interest in examing the content of the issue, then i think i would
> refer anyone to had such an interest to uscf's forum so that they can see
> for themselves
>

Ahem: http://masl.to/?O3AC2216E

> here, it is enough to say that the opinion of apparent indifference to the
> topics raised in the forum, are differently represented there, by people who
> plainly resent such political largesse, without even attempting any
> accounting for their actions
>

Ahem: http://masl.to/?O3AC2216E

> phil innes

Wake up and smell the coffee, dude...

mark HOULSBY (*not* houslby)

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166292182.9...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >
> >> "Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:1166208277.0...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
> >> >
> >> > 7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
> >> > 7 announcements ...
> >> >
> >> > _
> >> > The Forum contains a huge amount of material. If Phil
> >> > Innes is objecting to moderator action in there, more
> >> > specifics will be needed in order for people to know
> >> > what he is complaining about.
> >>
> >> "If" says Louis Blair.
> >>
> >> "If ... objecting". Does this mean that Louis Blair can't tell if I am
> >> objecting to something, or what the objection is?
> >>
> >
> > No, it's a polite way of saying: "Put up or shut up, you disingenuous
> > fuck."
>
> Houlsby continues in his third succesive post to ignore what I wrote and
> conduct himself as a net-nazi, without any attempt to address the subject.
>

Ok: http://masl.to/?O3AC2216E

> If he doesn't understand what has been written he is perhaps as pointless as
> Blair himself.

Dr. Blair seems far from pointless. His posts are both more pointed and
more intelligible than yours. Always.

> But he cannot even condescend to tell us why he is
> interested - but COMMANDS other people to do something for him ;))
>

The reason I am interested, Phil, is that for some time you have
evidently had a bee in your bonnet about... well... none of us is
exactly sure what, I think. With the genuine intent of discovering
"what", I have posted this message: http://masl.to/?O3AC2216E

> >> Since I have written the complaints of people actually in the forum about
> >> the moderator, and about the issue itself, are these insufficient
> >> 'specifics' for Louis Blair?
> >>
> >
> > Given that you are now writing about goings-on *in a different forum*
> > it *is* necessary for you to be *absolutely specific* about *every
> > reference* to the other forum, yes.
>
> So you think I should post 75 messages from USCF? Why do you think so? Is
> what I wrote ACTUALLY IN DISPUTE?
>

It may help. Short of that, clicking: http://masl.to/?O3AC2216E would
be something.

> > Taylor already explained that to
> > you, but, typically, you have evidently chosen to ignore him. Just in
> > case you try to argue that in fact Taylor never said any such thing,
> > here's what he wrote, on Friday, December 15th 2006 at 5:52pm:
> >
> > "Phil, if you are going to make claims here about a thread on the USCF
> > web-site, it is up to *_you_* to present *_here_* the parts of that
> > thread you consider relevant to your claims. It is not the
> > responsibility of others to establish your claims for you."
> > --Taylor Kingston
>
> If you can't bother to look at what I initially wrote, or note that it was
> cut - what is your point Houslby? You call people other people 'a fuck' but
> can't condescend to say what is in question or why you are interested in it?
>

Here again, you misspelt my name... if I were that Houslby dude, I be
pretty ticked by now, I think... Here's a suggestion, click:
http://masl.to/?O3AC2216E

> > Here's a link to the post in which he wrote that:
> >
> > http://masl.to/?A2274316E
> >
> >> Since I read through all the messages [75 at the time] is this too
> >> onerous
> >> for other people?
> >
> > Yes, certainly too onerous, you idiot. Like Taylor said, if you
> > introduce the topic into a *different forum* then very definitely you
> > have placed the onus upon *yourself* to do *all* of the legwork. All of
> > it.
>
> For you? You have got to be kidding yourself, your Highness! I ain't your
> vassal, nor his.
>

No one is suggesting such a thing. We want only to establish why you
have a bee in your bonnet. To this end, it may be in your interest to
click: http://masl.to/?O3AC2216E

> >> Or should I paste all of them here to say them 20 seconds
> >> of trouble going to the site and reading for themselves?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, do that, and raise points as you see fit. In other words, debate
> > like an adult who is not seriously deranged.
>
> For you? You are just an abuse merchant.
>

To justify fully this rather sweeping accusation you now have placed an
obligation upon yourself to point to examples of abuse in my every
post, starting with this one, which was my very first:

http://masl.to/?Z5771116E

> >> "If" reporting this issue is 'objecting to the moderator' and is not a
> >> report, but 'what he is complaining about', is this really 'for people to
> >> know,' as Louis writes above - or for himself?
> >>
> >
> > The former. I'm on tentahooks, here.
> >
> >> "If" all the people who DID complain in the thread are not to be noticed,
> >> nor what they said noticed - why should anyone present this to the
> >> attention
> >> of Louis Blair?
> >>
> >
> > No reason other than that YOU decided that it was worth importing the
> > issue to RGCP.
>
> As I thought. You have no reason of your own, no wit to understand the
> issue, and like to tell other people what to do and say fuck a lot, as if
> this is some sort of reason that people should obey you.
>

Try clicking http://masl.to/?O3AC2216E

> > Therefore the onus is upon YOU to do *whatever* Dr. Blair or anybody
> > else asks in order to clarify the matter, and to reach a satisfactory
> > conclusion. Under the circumstances Dr. Blair's post is not remotely
> > unreasonable.
> >
> > Put up or shut up, you disingenuous fuck.
>
> You should get over yourself a bit. Otherwise people might think you were an
> ignorant lout whining out loud as usual for some unstated reason
>

If that is so, how do you explain my receiving all the plaudits? How do
you explain that *nobody at all* has actually posted in your defence?
Rob Mitchell posts only diversions, and, like you, avoids the meat of
the issue when challenged. I would that he'd prove me wrong, just once.

Here are links to some of the plaudits I have received as a result of
my entreating you to do something for the good of your own mental
health...:

http://masl.to/?Z25E1416E

http://masl.to/?L26E1216E

http://masl.to/?K28E1216E

Can you cite similar messages of support which you have received?

How do you account for the above messages?

Mark Houlsby

<snip>

[Rob]

Mark Houlsby wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
> > Dear Mark,
> >
> > I hope you are well. It has been so very long since your last book was
> > reviewed after publication.
>
> It has. Don't worry, I intend to resume the practice.

Bravo.

> > Perhaps the next will be better received
> > than the last and your need to attempt to attack in a public newsgroup
> > will diminish.
>
> Perhaps. That rather depends upon your buddy Innes and you, doesn't it?

Why would it depend on me? I don't buy or read your books.

> > Such actions are indeed a waste of talent and we all
> > hope that you will come back to the light side of the force.
> >
>
> LOL don't tell me you actually *believe* that adolescent nonsense?
> (Don't get me wrong, I was 14 in 1977, and I'm especially enamoured of
> what are now episodes IV and VI).

No, but it is much nicer than what you have earned.

> > I am sorry to make this entreaty public .
>
> Don't be.
>
> > I do so as I am unsure if
> > your email as is listed in the newsgroup is accurate or not.
>
> Well, you should be sure, since if it were not, your last attempt to
> email me would have bounced. It did not bounce. DUH!

Not all messages bounce. If you were wiser you might know that,/// duh
back at ya!

> > So many
> > people are cowards as to who they really are and how to contact them
> > directly.
> >
>
> Such people need not concern us here....

Really? You defend them daily.

> > No venom is intended in this posting. I would just hope that those like
> > yourself, who have a true gift would cease wasting their time in
> > pointless attacks on others.
> >
>
> Stick with me, and you'll learn where this is leading. BTW, in posting
> like this, you're not helping your buddy Phil, AT ALL. Quite the
> opposite.

Not trying to help Phil. I was trying to help you.

> If you know him personally, if you see him from day to day (as has been
> hinted in these groups), *do* persuade him to see a good psychiatrist.
> It's what he really needs.

You might take that advise to hert as well.
> Mark

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on

7 the $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and
7 also how it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a
7 moderator - which even a Rhino's skin would register as
7 rash and offensive abuse of speech.
7
7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...

_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):

7 ... What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
7 wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
7 vague, would he? ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):

7 ... Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his
7 usual thing of cutting text then asking a question about it,
7 and unusual for him, or them, has come immediately tot
7 he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would hate to
7 be thought of as vague by them.
7
7 Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the
7 backside of the moon? Perhaps 'we' could think which of
7 those are more likely locations, ...

_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):

7 ... I quoted the text that I was asking about. See above,
7 where it is quoted again. ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 ... The text that mentioned USCF was cut. ...

_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):

7 ... One instance of Phil Innes mentioning USCF is
7 reproduced above (and has been reproduced in my
7 previous notes in this exchange). In any event, mentioning
7 USCF does not tell us what "reporting about Tanner", Phil
7 Innes was writing about. ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 ... Louis pretends to be honest by saying one instance is
7 'reproduced' above, and maybe if someone or other can
7 'reproduce' the other instance, the one he now questions,
7 then he would be happy?
7 ...
7 ... It is a question that could be resolved by actually
7 looking at USCF's website thereby removing the need to
7 ask questions as if to doubt the source. ...

_
I wrote (15 Dec 2006 10:07:56 -0800):

7 ... Mentioning USCF does not identify the "reporting about
7 Tanner" that Phil Innes was writing about.
7 ...
7 I HAVE looked at USCF's website and do not know what
7 supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner" Phil
7 Innes was writing about. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:32:46 -0800):
7 ... Phil just equivocates for several posts, never providing
7 any specific answers, then finally claims he supplied
7 specific information long ago but you somehow deleted it.
7 ...
_

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
7 announcements ...
_

Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Dec 2006 07:26:50 -0800):
7 There are many posts and announcements on USCF's
7 website. Looking there does not tell us to which
7 *_specific_* posts and/or announcements you refer. ...
_

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 ... At last viewing [Korenman and other things removed
7 from Lux thread] was the top topic. ...

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Dec 2006 09:52:31 -0800):
7 ... Furthermore, I see nothing in the above at all relevant
7 to the claim of "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner."

7 ...
_

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 ... You'd have to look in the right place Kingston. But this
7 time, do your own homework - find what USCF said about
7 Tanner, and THEN tell us your opinion. ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (to me) (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:42:51 GMT):
7 ... What I am thinking is what /your/ point is. Do you, in
7 fact, have one? ...
_
I wrote (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800):
7 The Forum contains a huge amount of material. If Phil
7 Innes is objecting to moderator action in there, more
7 specifics will be needed in order for people to know
7 what he is complaining about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 "If" says Louis Blair.
7
7 "If ... objecting". Does this mean that Louis Blair can't
7 tell if I am objecting to something, or what the objection is?
7
7 Since I have written the complaints of people actually in
7 the forum about the moderator, and about the issue itself,
7 are these insufficient 'specifics' for Louis Blair?

_
Phil Innes produced quotes of writers objecting to Herbert

Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 Since I read through all the messages [75 at the time]
7 is this too onerous for other people? Or should I paste
7 all of them here to say them 20 seconds of trouble
7 going to the site and reading for themselves?

_
Looking at the USCF forum does not, by itself, reveal that

Phil Innes is referring to Herbert Vaughn as the moderator.

We learned that by seeing something specific written by
Phil Innes.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 "If" reporting this issue is 'objecting to the moderator' and
7 is not a report, but 'what he is complaining about', is this
7 really 'for people to know,' as Louis writes above - or for
7 himself?

_
I did not write that "reporting this issue" is "objecting to
the moderator". It does seem to me that Phil Innes has
been (among other things) appearing to object to moderator
action. See his previous references (in this thread) to the
moderator, starting with the first quote above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 "If" all the people who DID complain in the thread are not
7 to be noticed, nor what they said noticed - why should
7 anyone present this to the attention of Louis Blair?

_
By all means notice them, but also notice and describe
accurately who they were writing about. Herbert Vaughn
is not the moderator.

_
I wrote (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800):
7 I have seen an "announcements" page that contained
7 a link for details about the recent resignation. Is that
7 where the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner" can be accessed? (The "report" begins: "On
7 Dec. 4, 2006, USCF Executive Board Secretary Robert
7 B. Tanner resigned. ...") ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 I DID write it here before,

_
Write what before?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 but some reprobate cut it, Louis!

_
Cut what?
_
Here is something that Phil Innes himself quietly cut:
_
"... I already wrote these references and Blair cut
them. ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006
15:05:00 GMT)
_
"... Would Phil Innes care to be specific about
which previous Phil Innes note supposedly
referred to 'their public announcements'? ..."
- Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800)
_
In order to help Phil Innes, I have attempted above
to remind him about his past notes in this thread.
Reminders about some of the reaction and context
have also been included above, in case it helps to
jog his memory.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 "If" you are really interested, I say the same to you
7 as I said to Kingston - go find it, and IF you have
7 something to say as result of your own diligence,
7 then do write again.

_
As indicated above, I have already attempted to find

the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about

Tanner", but I can not be sure that I have located what
Phil Innes was writing about without cooperation from
Phil Innes. I repeat:
_
"... I have seen an 'announcements' page that

contained a link for details about the recent
resignation. Is that where the supposedly
'less-than-honest reporting about Tanner' can
be accessed? (The 'report' begins: 'On
Dec. 4, 2006, USCF Executive Board
Secretary Robert B. Tanner resigned. ...')"

- Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800)

_

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
7 ... [Wasn't Taylor Kingston] the guy who wrote me about
7 what banned authors should have no right of reply at
7 ChessCafe's own forum? ...
_

I wrote (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800):
7 ...
7 "... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
7 banning, and I have never said you have written them
7 'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor
7 Kingston) (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:15:14 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 IF Louis Blair questions if Kinston titled his pieces 'about
7 book banning'

_
That is a silly possibility to consider. I have written nothing
about how "Kingston titled his pieces".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 he might differentiate that from the content of his
7 messages

_
I should not have to "differentiate" "the content of" my
"messages" from things that I did not mention, but, as a
favor to Phil Innes, I confirm that I am not writing about
how "Kingston titled his pieces".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 - in fact, IF he were interested he could ask Kingston
7 directly what his opinions are and were - even to the
7 specific extent IF authors could respond in the same
7 forum as their books are being criticised.

_
Phil Innes quietly drops the issue of book-banning while
making his suggestion.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 But I rather doubt IF Louis Blair will do that, or IF he is
7 actually interested in the topic, since I do not
7 understand IF he is interested in any topic.

_
I will not follow the suggestion of Phil Innes as I have
no desire to be distracted from the question of whether
or not there is writing about book-banning in the emails.
_

"... [Wasn't Taylor Kingston] the guy who wrote

me about what banned authors should have no
right of reply at ChessCafe's own forum? ..."
- Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT)

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 ... Another poster comments that the moderator now
7 engages in 'a nice spin'. ...
_
I wrote (15 Dec 2006 12:19:48 -0800):
7 ... That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:46 pm Timothy
7 Sawmiller note [about Herbert Vaughn]. Herbert Vaughn
7 is not the moderator. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Dec 2006 18:03:03 -0800):
7 Zing!! Louis, I would say you have just scored a big fat
7 bullseye on Phil's flummery. Ka-ching!

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 The NOISE
7
7 No chess content in this message from the lazy-duo, ...

_
Phil Innes was replying to a note that had been posted by
Taylor Kingston alone. The TK note DID quote my
15 Dec 2006 12:19:48 -0800 note - a note that, as far as
I can tell, had been ignored by Phil Innes. Phil Innes may
prefer that people not point out that Phil Innes has been
using the word, "moderator", to refer to someone who was
not the moderator, but I consider it appropriate to make
such observations even if Phil Innes considers it to be
something other than "chess content".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 ... the lazy-duo, who have now stopped disputing my
7 'claim' that the thread exists,

_
Nonsense for which Phil Innes should apologize promptly.
In this discussion, I have not disputed any claim that "the
thread exists". Phil Innes has no quote (or anything else
specific) to back up such foolishness because nothing of
the sort exists.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 and have now gone on to dispute items of its content,
7 and swami-like suggesting what I must think of it,

_
My objection (see above for an example) is to what Phil
Innes WROTE about the thread.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 rather than what USCF members wrote of what they think

_
Phil Innes produced quotes of writers objecting to Herbert

Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 - and now complaining I have not yet answered all their
7 questions!

_
There is still this matter:
_

"Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their

public announcements ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,

15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT)
_

"... I have seen an 'announcements' page that
contained a link for details about the recent
resignation. Is that where the supposedly
'less-than-honest reporting about Tanner' can
be accessed? (The 'report' begins: 'On
Dec. 4, 2006, USCF Executive Board

Secretary Robert B. Tanner resigned. ...') ..."

- Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800)
_

Also, there is the matter of the various snipping
charges made by Phil Innes. For example:

_
"... I already wrote these references and Blair cut
them. ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006
15:05:00 GMT)
_
"... Would Phil Innes care to be specific about
which previous Phil Innes note supposedly
referred to 'their public announcements'? ..."
- Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 I thought this was about being able to speak to awarding
7 yet another fat sum without a bid - apparently not - the
7 entire thing is about me! according to Blair and Kinston,

_
Again, nonsense for which Phil Innes should apologize
promptly. I have done nothing to indicate that "the
entire thing is about [Phil Innes]". I have simply
commented on and asked questions about the
moderator and Tanner-reporting issues that PHIL INNES
chose to raise.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 but then, they can't ever find a reason to say their own
7 point, or even if they have one.

_
So far, one of my points is that Phil Innes has been
claiming to criticize the moderator (and describing others
as criticizing the moderator), while referring to Herbert
Vaughn who is not the moderator. I might perhaps have
a point to make about the Phil Innes attack on the
Tanner-report, but that must wait until we have more
cooperation from Phil Innes on the identity of the Tanner
report to which he was referring. For now, my only
point on that matter is that I have not, so far, observed
such cooperation. As for the various snipping charges
by Phil Innes, they appear to arise from confusion by
Phil Innes about the contents of his own notes.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 Blair notes that Vaughn is not the moderator, by
7 title,

_
That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
_

"Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator."

- Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006 12:19:48 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 by I say Vaughn is, in effect.

_
And I say that one should not use "the moderator" if one
actually means: "someone who, in the opinion of Phil
Innes, is, in effect, the moderator". Furthermore, one
should not describe others as criticizing "the moderator"
if, in fact, the others are criticizing Herbert Vaughn and
there is no evidence that these others consider Herbert
Vaughn to be the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 The real moderator permits Vaughn to do as he pleases,

_
The real moderator permits a lot of people to do as they
please. Does that mean that Phil Innes might refer to
any of these people as "the moderator"? Incidentally, it
is nice to see Phil Innes, at last, acknowledge that there
is a "real moderator" who is not Herbert Vaughn. Now,
will Phil Innes apologize for using "the moderator" to
refer to someone who is not (in PI's words) "the real
moderator"? Will Phil Innes apologize for describing
others as criticizing "the moderator" when they were
criticizing someone who is not (in PI's words) "the real
moderator"?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 which is to say - there is no real moderation at that
7 forum, except political moderation.

_
Even if true, that is no excuse for using "the moderator"
to refer to someone who is not (in PI's words) "the real
moderator", and no excuse for describing others as
criticizing "the moderator" when they were criticizing
someone who is not (in PI's words) "the real moderator".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 What Kingston has to do with moderation Louis Blair
7 doesn't know, since Blair won't ask Kingston if he
7 thinks that even authors should not have a say at
7 Chesscafe.
7
7 That's as much interest as these 2 have in 'the topic'.

_
My interest includes determining the merits of the Phil
Innes attack on "the moderator". Questioning Taylor
Kingston would not have determined that Phil Innes was
(1) using "the moderator" to refer to someone who is not
(in PI's words) "the real moderator", and (2) describing
others as criticizing "the moderator" when they were
criticizing someone who is not (in PI's words) "the real
moderator".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):

7 The ISSUE
7 ...

_
The Phil Innes description of "The ISSUE" avoided referring
to any supposedly inappropriate conduct by "the moderator"
and avoided claiming that there had been "less-than-honest
reporting about Tanner".

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:48:50 GMT):

7 ... Is what I wrote ACTUALLY IN DISPUTE? ...

_
Example:
_

"... Another poster comments that the

moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'. ..."
- Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT)
_

"... That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:46 pm

Timothy Sawmiller note [about Herbert
Vaughn]. Herbert Vaughn is not the
moderator. ..." - Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006
12:19:48 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (to Mark Houlsby)
(Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:48:50 GMT):

7 ... [You] can't condescend to say what is in question ...

_
An example of something that is in question:

_
"... I already wrote these references and Blair cut

them. ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006
15:05:00 GMT)

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 Kerist! Kingston! I referred to the Forum in the first post! It
7 is your obfustication with terms such as 'claims', instead of
7 references, and so on - and it is your claim that even though
7 you looked, you couldn't find 75 messages headed by
7 Korenman's name?
7
7 ROFL

_
There is no trouble finding notes about Korenman. The difficulty

was trying to identify the behavior by the moderator to which Phil
Innes objects.

_

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 But 'sounds like' the problem is with the moderator to me,
7 who apologised at least twice for rash over-reactions,

_
So far, I have only seen Phil Innes identify apologies from
Herbert Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 and unlike Kingston, writers in those threads objected to
7 the MODERATOR's abuse

_

Phil Innes produced quotes of writers objecting to Herbert

Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 and thought the issue Marinello raised was a substantial
7 one, worth investigating. ...

_
Who maintains that the issue is not worth investigating?
_
"... Now that Beatriz has been forthcoming with the
real information, we can discuss the matter and
reach our individual conclusions. I'm not a big fan
of Beatriz on several matters, but she was right to
bring the information forward and shine a little light
on the situation!" - Herbert Vaughn (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 1:19 pm)

_

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 ... Now - if Taylor Kingston can't find any issue here ...

_
The difficulty I have is finding justification for the Phil
Innes criticism of the moderator.

_

Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Dec 2006 09:52:31 -0800):

7 ... Phil, if you are going to make claims here about a
7 thread on the USCF web-site, it is up to *_you_* to
7 present *_here_* the parts of that thread you consider
7 relevant to your claims. It is not the responsibility of
7 others to establish your claims for you. ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 ... Says who? Who the hell do you think you are? If
7 you want to verify it - then you could go an look for
7 yourself ...

_
Looking at the USCF forum will not, by itself, reveal that

Phil Innes is referring to Herbert Vaughn as the moderator.

We learn that by seeing something specific written by
Phil Innes.

_

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 ... The issue is about people like Randy Bauer who say
7 they will bring more accountability to all levels of USCF
7 - so that there could be re-established some level of
7 confidence in how it could use money - and, while
7 everyone except Taylor Kingston and Louis Blair, don't
7 understand this point, ...

_
What I do not understand is the Phil Innes complaint about
the moderator.

_

Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Dec 2006 09:52:31 -0800):
7 ... Furthermore, I see nothing in the above at all relevant
7 to the claim of "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner."

_

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 ... You'd have to look in the right place Kingston. But

7 this time, do your own homework - find what USCF said
7 about Tanner, and THEN tell us your opinion.

_
Why should anyone have to guess what Phil Innes is
complaining about? Phil Innes is the one making the
public attack. If Phil Innes is willing to consider Herbert
Vaughn to be the moderator, who knows what he would
choose to regard as something that "USCF said"?

_
Phil Innes wrote (to Taylor Kingston)

(Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT):

7 ... I can post your own e-mails here - shall we start with

7 book banning at chesscafe and your attitudes? ...

_

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:59:13 GMT):
7 No content in this message Houlsby. Only net-nazi abuse.
7
7 If you can't attempt the topic, then you are entirely
7 ignorable by virtue of having no interest in talking of chess.
_
Mark Houlsby wrote (16 Dec 2006 09:13:41 -0800):
7 Oh I assure you I am anti-Nazi, pro-rationality.
7 Notwithstanding my own undeniable occasional tendency
7 to the irrational, that is.
7 ...
7 If it were even remotely true that I have no interest in talking
7 of chess, then you may, indeed, have a point. However, it is
7 very easy for me to demonstrate that it is not true at all.
7 How many recent examples of my discussing chess would
7 you like me to cite?
7
7 As for my "attempting the topic", well, my little entreaty to
7 which you have just replied was intended as a (probably
7 futile) gesture to nudge you in its general direction.
7
7 Notice the number of endorsements my entreaties have
7 received.
7
7 I'm serious dude. You need help. Really.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:48:36 GMT):
7 [With regard to your anti-Nazi, pro-rationality] See then,
7 if you could attempt the subject matter.
7 ...
7 I am not making an request [for examples of you discussing
7 chess] as much as stating an observation
7 ...
7 LOL [about endorsements of your entreaties]
7 ...
7 No content again from Houlsby! Who here even justifies
7 writing ad hom trash and earning his appelation by stating
7 that what he does is popular! Heil!
7
7 Did you really not want to discuss the topic Houlsby; there
7 are several possibilities, not exclusive of what I have written
7 about 'awards' without responsibility, or political favorites
7 being preferred to those scape-goated to some cause? ...
_
Reproducing only those last four lines, Taylor Kingston
wrote (16 Dec 2006 11:37:16 -0800):
7 Phil, when your own handling of the original topic is so
7 egregiously bad, your handling of the topic naturally
7 becomes the topic.
7
7 In this thread, you have presented nothing to justify those
7 aspersions [about 'awards' and political favorites]. Instead
7 you have presented nonsense, misrepresenting what
7 various people have said, and misidentifying who said what.
7 You accused USCF's moderator of "abusing speech," yet
7 the supposedly abusive statements you have cited were
7 not made by any moderator. If you're going to be so be so
7 sloppy, you will naturally attract criticism.
7 You seem to feel that presenting evidence is such an
7 onerous inconvenience, and a matter of such trivial
7 unimportance, that you are justified in casting aspersions
7 without it. That is offensive to all fair-minded
7 rec.games.chess readers, and makes you their target.
7 And when you do present "evidence," it is usually so
7 disorganized, dubious, and irrelevant that the only thing it
7 evinces is the sorry state of your thought processes.
7 There may well be favoritism and scapegoating going on
7 in today's USCF, but you, Phil, are definitely not the man
7 to uncover it. You make Inspector Clouseau look like
7 Sherlock Holmes.

_
Phil Innes wrote (about Taylor Kingston)
(Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:04:05 GMT):

7 ... He CUT IT ! - yet again - he cut his own attitude to
7 forums and if authors should be banned! HE CUT IT again!
7
7 Now he cuts my replies that I DID cite the forum, and he
7 CUT my reference to what his interest in it could be, and
7 he CUT the refutation of his 'claims' since he CANNOT
7 DISPUTE this is what OTHER people wrote. He CUT the
7 reference to not being able to find reference to Tanner,
7 and continues with his slime. He even cut the fact that
7 he couldn't find the thread in question, even after looking.
7 ...
7 YOU CUT the evidence. You cut the references. ...

_
Once again, Phil Innes seems to be confused about the
contents of his own notes. Here is the ENTIRE rest of
of what Phil Innes wrote for his Sat, 16 Dec 2006
18:48:36 GMT Phil Innes note (the note to which Taylor
Kingston was responding):
_

"And spare me your stupid, juvenile concern!
If you want to write on an issue I assume you
will do so, not say that not doing so is popular,
therefore other people need help, etc = that

defines a net-nazi to a T." - Phil Innes (to Mark
Houlsby) (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:48:36 GMT)
_
I would guess that Phil Innes is thinking of his Sat,
16 Dec 2006 14:32:48 GMT note (which is not the one
to which Taylor Kingston was responding). Here is MY
response to that note:
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT):

7 ... no one has actually disputed that anything i wrote is
7 untrue ...

_
Example:
_
"... Another poster comments that the
moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'. ..."
- Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT)
_
"... That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:46 pm
Timothy Sawmiller note [about Herbert
Vaughn]. Herbert Vaughn is not the
moderator. ..." - Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006
12:19:48 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT):

7 ... why any of these people have written at all is
7 unknown, ...

_
One benefit has been to discover that Phil Innes was

(1) using "the moderator" to refer to someone who is not
(in PI's words) "the real moderator", and (2) describing
others as criticizing "the moderator" when they were
criticizing someone who is not (in PI's words) "the real

moderator". We have also been able see Phil Innes
admit such behavior while not offering an apology.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT):

7 ... people [in the forum] who plainly resent such
7 political largesse, without even attempting any
7 accounting for their actions

_
Who, other than Phil Innes, believes that there is no
"attempting" to "account" "for their actions"?

_
"I voted in favor of giving the money to Mikhail because
I was so impressed with what he had achieved in Kansas.
In retrospect I believe I made a mistake, but that does not
take away from his proven brilliance as a chess promoter
and organizer." - Joel Channing (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:03 pm)
_
_
"... Mikhail did incredible work for US chess while he was
located in Kansas. He secured significant grant funding
from the State, involved the local community to a degree
rarely seen in a town of its size, brought in world class
players and hosted quality events that received national
coverage. ..." - Randy Bauer (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:58 pm)
_
_
"... This arrangement involved work other than fund raising,
and it is possible that sponsorship will still result from his
efforts, but I am disappointed that no definite sponsorship
has resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun Dec 10, 2006
6:50 pm)
_
_
"I'm sure there were others, but one area where he was
successful was getting grant funding from the State of
Kansas, I believe through their department of economic
development. This was different than other chess grant
funding efforts through government, which generally rely
on chess' educational value. In this instance, he went
with the approach that 'chess tournaments appeal to
people as being intellectual and full of smart people, and
with strong national publicity, Kansas will benefit from
being associated with them.' I think he also tied in the
Karpov angle, again giving the City and State a 'worldly'
image. ..." - Randy Bauer (Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:10 pm)
_
_
"Here's an article that ran in National Geographic on
Korenman and chess in Kansas.
_
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0605/feature6/
..." - Maret Thorpe (Dec 13, 2006 1:28 pm)
_
_
"Here are some known activities:
_
Fundraising:
_
2003 - Received a grant from the State of Kansas for
$251,000 to operate the Karpov International School of
chess in Lindsborg, KS
_
2005/06 - Raised $150,000 for the Chess for Peace
program featured former President Mikhail Gorbachev,
World Champions Anatoly Karpov and Susan Polgar
and a nationalwide scholastic group trip to Moscow for
a match with Russian scholastic players
_
For the USCF sponsored activities:
_
2003, 2004 - Raised over $15,000 for the Final Four
College Presidential Cup (officially sponsored by
USCF! With $0 support in 2003 from USCF)
_
2004 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov inauguration to
the Hall of Fame (USCF sponsored $1,000)
_
2005 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov participation at
the SuperNational in Nashville, TN (USCF support - $0)
_
Chess Organizer:
_
=B7 2004 U.S. Junior Open
=B7 2004 U.S. Junior Championship
=B7 2004 U.S. Cadet Championship
=B7 2004 Pan American Intercollegiate Championship
=B7 2003, 2004 Final Four Presidential Cup
=B7 2001-2004 Lindsborg Rotary Open
=B7 2002-2005 Lindsborg Open
=B7 2003 Lindsborg Invitational
=B7 2004 Lindsborg Knock-Out
=B7 2003, 2004, 2005 KS Open
=B7 2004, 2005 Anatoly Karpov - Susan Polgar Match
=B7 2001-2006 Scholastic tournaments
=B7 2005 KS Scholastic Grade Championship
=B7 2001-2006 Summer camps
=B7 2003-2005 Seminars for Educators
=B7 2006 Illinois Championship
_
Awards:
_
2006 USCF Special Service Award
2005 FIDE International Organizer
2005 Community Service Award (Lindsborg)
2005 Rotary International Service Award
2004 USCF Chess Organizer of the Year
_
Dr. Korenman is also an important member of the
USCF Scholastic Council. He is well respected by
many people including former WC Anatoly Karpov,
former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, Susan
Polgar and countless others." - Paul Truong (Wed
Dec 13, 2006 2:00 pm)

[Louis Blair]

· 2004 U.S. Junior Open
· 2004 U.S. Junior Championship
· 2004 U.S. Cadet Championship
· 2004 Pan American Intercollegiate Championship
· 2003, 2004 Final Four Presidential Cup
· 2001-2004 Lindsborg Rotary Open
· 2002-2005 Lindsborg Open
· 2003 Lindsborg Invitational
· 2004 Lindsborg Knock-Out
· 2003, 2004, 2005 KS Open
· 2004, 2005 Anatoly Karpov - Susan Polgar Match
· 2001-2006 Scholastic tournaments
· 2005 KS Scholastic Grade Championship
· 2001-2006 Summer camps
· 2003-2005 Seminars for Educators
· 2006 Illinois Championship

[Mark Houlsby]

Rob wrote:

> Mark Houlsby wrote:
> > Rob wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Mark,
> > >
> > > I hope you are well. It has been so very long since your last book was
> > > reviewed after publication.
> >
> > It has. Don't worry, I intend to resume the practice.
>
> Bravo.
>
> > > Perhaps the next will be better received
> > > than the last and your need to attempt to attack in a public newsgroup
> > > will diminish.
> >
> > Perhaps. That rather depends upon your buddy Innes and you, doesn't it?
>
>
> Why would it depend on me? I don't buy or read your books.
>

Here's a hint: they're not *my* books. There'd be little point in my
reviewing a book which I had written. Hardly an impartial critic, and
all that...

I was referring to my continually confuting your bullshit, and Phil's
bullshit. Phil has an excuse, he's mentally ill. What's your excuse?

> > > Such actions are indeed a waste of talent and we all
> > > hope that you will come back to the light side of the force.
> > >
> >
> > LOL don't tell me you actually *believe* that adolescent nonsense?
> > (Don't get me wrong, I was 14 in 1977, and I'm especially enamoured of
> > what are now episodes IV and VI).
>
>
> No, but it is much nicer than what you have earned.
>

I'm sorry.... what *exactly* do you mean by that? What is "nicer"? What
have I earned?

> > > I am sorry to make this entreaty public .
> >
> > Don't be.
> >
> > > I do so as I am unsure if
> > > your email as is listed in the newsgroup is accurate or not.
> >
> > Well, you should be sure, since if it were not, your last attempt to
> > email me would have bounced. It did not bounce. DUH!
>
>
> Not all messages bounce. If you were wiser you might know that,/// duh
> back at ya!
>

Dude, every time I've emailed a bogus address, it's bounced. Maybe
you've just emailed folks and they've not gotten back to you.

> > > So many
> > > people are cowards as to who they really are and how to contact them
> > > directly.
> > >
> >
> > Such people need not concern us here....
>
> Really? You defend them daily.
>

Oh yes? Who would that be? Name names.

> > > No venom is intended in this posting. I would just hope that those like
> > > yourself, who have a true gift would cease wasting their time in
> > > pointless attacks on others.
> > >
> >
> > Stick with me, and you'll learn where this is leading. BTW, in posting
> > like this, you're not helping your buddy Phil, AT ALL. Quite the
> > opposite.
>
>
> Not trying to help Phil. I was trying to help you.
>

Well, you ought to be trying to help Phil, if he's really your
buddy.... the guy is mentally ill.

> > If you know him personally, if you see him from day to day (as has been
> > hinted in these groups), *do* persuade him to see a good psychiatrist.
> > It's what he really needs.
>
> You might take that advise to hert as well.

"...take that advise to hert..." ...hmm.

[Chess One]

Dear Mark Houslby - if you wish to discuss the issues, I proposed them again
in a new thread, Chess Politics Chess Heretics. You will excuse me for
declining to discuss them through Blair's-filter.

But I will not discuss the issues with people who will not state their own
interest in them, nor conduct their own due-diligence - meanwhile conducting
very extension stalls, by demanding proofs and so on, for what is not even
contested otherwise.

If indeed Chess Politics Chess Heretics is 'my issue' and you find nothing
to concern yourself in it, then you might say so or pass on further replies,
however, you might disabuse yourself that because you have no natural
interest in the topic, that those who do are in need of psychiatric help =
which only works as a thow-away line; a joke ;)

But you do not employ your term that way! There are so many issues here
confounded with each other, that I will discuss each and every one with you
or anyone else - but more discreetly than this Blair-rendered omnibus miasma
edition.

I do emphasise a point; if you do not state your own interest, but demand
something of others, then, to talk psychology, this is not what is
considered sincere. IE: if you ask for sources - why? What's the point ot
telling you? What is the implication of knowing a source, for example? Why
not research the issue yourself, and then if it proves false, contradict it
by all means! But otherwise is providing information literally a waste of
time?

I do not consider Blair an honest reporter, and he snips and cuts to his own
amusement, which is frequently maliciously distorting.

The immediate issues raised by members at USCF's forum are as I reported
them, and even cited them here - sorry not to oblige you by reposting all 75
messages, but, you see, you never said why you were even interested, or why
you could not read them yourself - besides which I would decline to do so,
since there are other posters here who could verify what I say, so the
measure was uncalled for.

I think you have not understood that the reluctance to provide answers seems
very much in accord with why people want the information anyway.

Perhaps instead of wasting these given responses below, you could
subsequently re-use them? But if you write to me in disparaging terms, then
you can instead of any of these sober measures, not expect an answer, since
I will not consider your inquiry worth response.

These measures, I suggest to you, are rational means of addressing any
topic.

Phil Innes

"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message

news:1166310275.5...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

[Chess One]

"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message

> Here are links to some of the plaudits I have received as a result of
> my entreating you to do something for the good of your own mental
> health...:

Houslby, you speculate in public about the mental health of other people,
but can't write on-topic without preceding you 'inquiries' by telling others
to 'fuck off'. You seem to think I value your opinion because you are
getting off on others' abuse.

ROFL

You have small ironical appreciation, no?

If you wish to attend to any dicreet issues of chess or its management, I
have suggested elsewhere a sane means of doing so. Should you like to do
something else, I am sure there are plenty of people who will like that sort
of thing, and will likle you while you do it. <shrug>

Phil Innes

[Jerzy]

Użytkownik "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:ZVbhh.2793$386.2471@trndny01...

> Houslby, you speculate in public about the mental health of other people,
> but can't write on-topic without preceding you 'inquiries' by telling
> others to 'fuck off'. You seem to think I value your opinion because you
> are getting off on others' abuse.

This is why I kill-filed him a long time ago :-)

[Chess One]

"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message

news:1166326026.2...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

>
> 7 - in fact, IF he were interested he could ask Kingston
> 7 directly what his opinions are and were - even to the
> 7 specific extent IF authors could respond in the same
> 7 forum as their books are being criticised.
>
> _
> Phil Innes quietly drops the issue of book-banning while
> making his suggestion.

Balir avoids a direct challenge to find out Kingston's attitude for himself,
while suggesting I 'dropped' the issue. ROFL

_
> Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):
>
> 7 But I rather doubt IF Louis Blair will do that, or IF he is
> 7 actually interested in the topic, since I do not
> 7 understand IF he is interested in any topic.
>
> _
> I will not follow the suggestion of Phil Innes as I have
> no desire to be distracted from the question of whether
> or not there is writing about book-banning in the emails.

WHAT does that mean in plain English? Is that "I am not interested in the
subject of book banning" ?

Can someone please parse this sentence: "I have no desire to be distracted

from the question of whether or not there is writing about book-banning in
the emails".

Does that mean " I am interested in the subject of book banning, and want no
distractions" ?

If he doesn't want to be distracted [by me], why doesn't he do as I suggest.
The LUDICROUS Blair demands information from me, but can't even answer the
simplest question directly. I have no idea of what his answer means - except
that he seems compeltely insincere.

If anyone wants to know Kingston's attitude, then ask him directly.

Phil Innes

[Chess One]

"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message

news:1166337002.6...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

> Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:48:50 GMT):
>
> 7 ... Is what I wrote ACTUALLY IN DISPUTE? ...
>
> _
> Example:
> _
> "... Another poster comments that the
> moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'. ..."
> - Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT)
> _
> "... That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:46 pm
> Timothy Sawmiller note [about Herbert
> Vaughn]. Herbert Vaughn is not the
> moderator. ..." - Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006
> 12:19:48 -0800)

But in the very previous post Blair answered:

7 ... the lazy-duo, who have now stopped disputing my
7 'claim' that the thread exists,

_
Nonsense for which Phil Innes should apologize promptly.
In this discussion, I have not disputed any claim that "the
thread exists". Phil Innes has no quote (or anything else
specific) to back up such foolishness because nothing of
the sort exists.

----------------

Blair writes in utterly idiotic fashion to distort even his own intention.
If he has some interest in the SUBJECT MATTER of the post he might indicate
it clearly, in a non-diffident sentence, or continue as he does here, to
contradict not me, but himself.

Phil Innes

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

> Dear Mark Houslby - if you wish to discuss the issues, I proposed them again
> in a new thread, Chess Politics Chess Heretics. You will excuse me for
> declining to discuss them through Blair's-filter.
>

I shall reply in that thread. I shall not, however, excuse you for your
first entreating me to discuss the topic, then, when I propose to
discuss the topic IN DETAIL, your performing your now-customary
*volte-face* by which YOU completely ignore the topic - precisely the
charge which you level at me.

> But I will not discuss the issues with people who will not state their own
> interest in them, nor conduct their own due-diligence - meanwhile conducting
> very extension stalls, by demanding proofs and so on, for what is not even
> contested otherwise.
>

So, as far as you are concerned, unless you, Phil Innes, find a
correspondent's *motive* for questioning your position to satisfy your
idiosyncratic criteria, you are not prepared to debate with them? Is
that correct?

> If indeed Chess Politics Chess Heretics is 'my issue' and you find nothing
> to concern yourself in it, then you might say so or pass on further replies,
> however, you might disabuse yourself that because you have no natural
> interest in the topic, that those who do are in need of psychiatric help =
> which only works as a thow-away line; a joke ;)
>

No, it goes deeper. I shall reply in "Heretics", because I am now
interested in this topic, whether you would have it or no....

> But you do not employ your term that way!

Indeed I do not! You *really are* mentally ill, and you *really do*
need psychiatric help!

This much is glaringly apparent. This is why, when I entreat you to
*seek* psychiatric help, I receive plaudits, whereas the only "support"
(if, indeed, it may be properly characterised as such) you receive,
evidently, consists entirely of your buddy Rob Mitchell's essentially
diversionary (if equally evasive) random ramblings.

Seek psychiatric help, Phil... you really need it! Your really needing
psychiatric help is the reason why I receive plaudits when I entreat
you so to do.... you *have* noticed the plaudits, haven't you?

>There are so many issues here
> confounded with each other, that I will discuss each and every one with you
> or anyone else - but more discreetly than this Blair-rendered omnibus miasma
> edition.
>

You're saying that you can't understand Dr. Blair's posts? Evidently
he, and a great many of us, experience a similar difficulty with your
posts. What do you propose that we do? Nobody knows what the heck you
mean. It's as if your writing is *deliberately unintelligible*.

> I do emphasise a point; if you do not state your own interest,

Why must I state my own interest? Merely to satisfy *your* curiosity?

> but demand
> something of others,

Not demand, entreat.

> then, to talk psychology,

Not psychology, psychiatry.

> this is not what is
> considered sincere.

Whether or not it is considered sincere, it is, in fact, sincere.

> IE: if you ask for sources - why?

Simple really: you have characterised the apportioning of $10,000 a
scandal. Whether or not you intend it to be, this is a serious
accusation. In time, it may prove that you are justified in employing
the term: "scandal". It may prove that you are not justified.

In making such a statement, however, you place certain obligations upon
yourself, one of which is to identify clearly what your sources are.
Another is to demonstrate, clearly, what it is about the apportionment
which causes you to view it as a "scandal".

> What's the point ot
> telling you?

In telling me, you'd be telling everyone else in the forum who cares to
know about it. If you did not want people with an interest in the
subject to be able to read about it in this forum, why did you
introduce the subject into this forum?

> What is the implication of knowing a source, for example?

In your case, without your revealing your source, the implication is
that you *invented* it. You have a long track record of *inventing*
evidence and then later, when you have been caught red-handed,
performing your customary volte-face, and denying all knowledge.

In short, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not to be
trusted *at all*, so if you are characterising something as a
"scandal", you'd *better* be able to demonstrate, clearly, that it
really is a scandal, rather than merely a "scandal" in the
Phil-ological sense.

> Why
> not research the issue yourself, and then if it proves false, contradict it
> by all means!

Phil, I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT IS, since you have said nothing *specific*
about what it is. Please say something specific, then I *shall*
research it. Ok?

> But otherwise is providing information literally a waste of
> time?
>

No, it lets people who read this forum know what the heck it is you
mean. Thus far, we're completely in the dark.

> I do not consider Blair an honest reporter, and he snips and cuts to his own
> amusement, which is frequently maliciously distorting.
>

Give *numerous* examples of such "malicious" distortion as practised by
Dr. Blair. If you cannot, you may have just libelled him in a public
forum....

> The immediate issues raised by members at USCF's forum are as I reported
> them, and even cited them here - sorry not to oblige you by reposting all 75
> messages, but, you see, you never said why you were even interested, or why
> you could not read them yourself - besides which I would decline to do so,
> since there are other posters here who could verify what I say, so the
> measure was uncalled for.
>

No, it wasn't, you see -- none of us yet has a clue what the heck you
mean...

> I think you have not understood that the reluctance to provide answers seems
> very much in accord with why people want the information anyway.
>

Which people? What information?

> Perhaps instead of wasting these given responses below, you could
> subsequently re-use them? But if you write to me in disparaging terms, then
> you can instead of any of these sober measures, not expect an answer, since
> I will not consider your inquiry worth response.
>

In other words, first you entreat me to engage the topic, then, when I
do exactly that, you say "No, I now do not want to discuss the topic
with you.". This you have done on a number of occasions, and not just
to me....

> These measures, I suggest to you, are rational means of addressing any
> topic.
>

Which measures? Any topic? Are you sure?

Your now-customary avoidance of the topic is duly noted.

Mark Houlsby

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> > Here are links to some of the plaudits I have received as a result of
> > my entreating you to do something for the good of your own mental
> > health...:
>
> Houslby, you speculate in public about the mental health of other people,
> but can't write on-topic without preceding you 'inquiries' by telling others
> to 'fuck off'. You seem to think I value your opinion because you are
> getting off on others' abuse.
>

Yet, curiously, I am not the one on the receiving end of something
approximating opprobrium.

How do you account for that? If you are being falsely characterised,
why has *nobody* bothered to support you? (Rob Mitchell's diversionary
tactics do not qualify as support, they do you both more harm than
good).

> ROFL
>
> You have small ironical appreciation, no?
>

Indeed, no.

> If you wish to attend to any dicreet issues of chess or its management, I
> have suggested elsewhere a sane means of doing so.

I shall reply to it.

> Should you like to do
> something else, I am sure there are plenty of people who will like that sort
> of thing, and will likle you while you do it. <shrug>
>
> Phil Innes

Where are your supporters, Phil?

Mark Houlsby

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

You see, Phil, this is a *prime example* of what we mean. Dr. Blair has
been as assiduous about addressing your posts as anyone might
reasonably be expected to be, and when he points out yet another
example of your making a groundless accusation and recommends that you
apologise, as you should, you simply attack him *again*.

Really, you are doing your credibility a great deal of harm.

Mark Houlsby

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

> "Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
> news:1166326026.2...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > 7 - in fact, IF he were interested he could ask Kingston
> > 7 directly what his opinions are and were - even to the
> > 7 specific extent IF authors could respond in the same
> > 7 forum as their books are being criticised.
> >
> > _
> > Phil Innes quietly drops the issue of book-banning while
> > making his suggestion.
>
> Balir avoids a direct challenge to find out Kingston's attitude for himself,
> while suggesting I 'dropped' the issue. ROFL
>

Balir? Is he one of the dwarves in "The Lord Of The Rings"? I can never
remember all their names.

Oh, wait... perhaps you refer to the impeccable Dr. Blair. I cannot
speak for him, and, goodness knows, he is perfectly capable of speaking
for himself.

Nevertheless it appears to me that Dr. Blair entertains a genuine and
evidently well-motivated interest in the subject of emails about book
banning. He notes some typical Innes obfuscation. Innes goes of at a
tangent. Hmmm... all this seems strangely familiar.

> _
> > Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):
> >
> > 7 But I rather doubt IF Louis Blair will do that, or IF he is
> > 7 actually interested in the topic, since I do not
> > 7 understand IF he is interested in any topic.
> >
> > _
> > I will not follow the suggestion of Phil Innes as I have
> > no desire to be distracted from the question of whether
> > or not there is writing about book-banning in the emails.
>
> WHAT does that mean in plain English? Is that "I am not interested in the
> subject of book banning" ?
>

What exactly do you mean by: "...plain English", Phil?

> Can someone please parse this sentence: "I have no desire to be distracted
> from the question of whether or not there is writing about book-banning in
> the emails".
>
> Does that mean " I am interested in the subject of book banning, and want no
> distractions" ?
>

Not bad, but it means more than that. One alternative wording which one
might suggest is:

"I am interested in the subject of whether or not, in the emails in
question, book banning was discussed. I should prefer to get to the
bottom of this question, and, with this in mind, distractions would
seem counter-productive."

> If he doesn't want to be distracted [by me], why doesn't he do as I suggest.

Which suggestion is that, Phil?

> The LUDICROUS Blair demands information from me,

You're not big on irony, are you?

> but can't even answer the
> simplest question directly.

Which question?

> I have no idea of what his answer means - except
> that he seems compeltely insincere.
>

To this writer, he seems absolutely sincere, and, furthermore, there
must be few people who are as willing as Dr. Blair evidently is to wade
through the reams and reams of obfuscating hogwash otherwise known as
your posts. Perhaps you should be grateful for his diligence.

> If anyone wants to know Kingston's attitude, then ask him directly.
>

I shall make a point of it.

Meanwhile, Phil, where's the beef?

Mark Houlsby

[Kenneth Sloan]

Chess One wrote:

>
> If you wish to attend to any dicreet issues of chess

I'm confused. What, precisely, is a "dicreet issue"? Can you give an
example?

--
Kenneth Sloan Kennet...@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 Dear Mark Houslby - if you wish to discuss the issues, I
7 proposed them again in a new thread, Chess Politics
7 Chess Heretics. ...

_
In the opening statement, Phil Innes avoided referring to any

supposedly inappropriate conduct by "the moderator" and
avoided claiming that there had been "less-than-honest
reporting about Tanner".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 ... if you ask for sources - why? What's the point ot telling
7 you? What is the implication of knowing a source, for
7 example? ...

_
It helps people to judge whether or not the conclusions of
Phil Innes are produced in a sensible fashion.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 Why not research the issue yourself, and then if it proves
7 false, contradict it by all means!

_
For one thing:
_
"... No one can prove a negative, eh? ..." - Phil
Innes (Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:59:56 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 But otherwise is providing information literally a waste of
7 time?

_
Researching the issue would not, by itself, have revealed
that Phil Innes was referring to Herbert Vaughn as the
moderator. We learned that by seeking specifics from
Phil Innes. Phil Innes may consider it to be a waste of
time for us to learn such things, but I disagree. After all,

Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 I do not consider Blair an honest reporter,

_
I am not a "reporter" and I have not claimed to be a
"reporter".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 and he snips and cuts to his own amusement, which
7 is frequently maliciously distorting.

_
Phil Innes, of course, makes no attempt to justify the
above nonsense with specific examples.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 The immediate issues raised by members at USCF's
7 forum are as I reported them, and even cited them
7 here - sorry not to oblige you by reposting all 75
7 messages, but, you see, you never said why you
7 were even interested, or why you could not read
7 them yourself - besides which I would decline to do
7 so, since there are other posters here who could
7 verify what I say, so the measure was uncalled for.
7 ...

[Chess One]

"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
>

> Seek psychiatric help, Phil... you really need it! Your really needing
> psychiatric help is the reason why I receive plaudits when I entreat
> you so to do.... you *have* noticed the plaudits, haven't you?

A challenge awaits you at the end of this post Houslby - and if you do not
perform the challenge, then what you have said reflects on you.

> Why must I state my own interest? Merely to satisfy *your* curiosity?

Do you have some inhibition about saying why you command anbd condemn
others, Yes!

You are just an arrogant abuser who can't say why he wants to command
others - while forever questioning them.

> Simple really: you have characterised the apportioning of $10,000 a
> scandal. Whether or not you intend it to be, this is a serious
> accusation. In time, it may prove that you are justified in employing
> the term: "scandal". It may prove that you are not justified.

In time awarding $50,000 with no bids then $10,000 with no bids /may/ be
thought not a scandal?

What I reported was what members wrote at the USCF forum. Is that itself
reprehensible? Is there anything odd about it at all? Sure it is a serious
accusation by the members, and what Mark Houslby may not in time be 'a
scandal' is hardly justification for calling reporting of members interests
in terms of insanity.

> In making such a statement, however, you place certain obligations upon
> yourself, one of which is to identify clearly what your sources are.

You are fond of command - eh? If awarding money with no performance criteria
is not a scandal for you, what do you think a 'scandal' is?

> In your case, without your revealing your source,

I DID reveal the source - in fact YOU asked me to post all 75 messages here.
Now you know the source, which remains uncontested, what does it mean to you
to now understand that this is from USCF members? You fail to answer the
question I put you -0 instead you seek to condemn the reporter.

> the implication is
> that you *invented* it.

So you insist that it does not exist - you fail to look for yourself. You do
not ask others if it exists, and you continue to make defamatory ideas.

It is you Holsby who is lacking here. You are exposed for your trash. You
who do not look. You call names without knowing anything. You!

> You have a long track record of *inventing*
> evidence and then later, when you have been caught red-handed,
> performing your customary volte-face, and denying all knowledge.

The HOUSLBY CHALLENGE: Specifically let me turn this on you - and if you
wish to state that the material exists, then presumably you will retract
your [abstract] shit-talk and calm down, otherwise the term net-nazi suits
you well.

I wait your response.

Phil Innes'

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
7 ... [Wasn't Taylor Kingston] the guy who wrote me about
7 what banned authors should have no right of reply at
7 ChessCafe's own forum? ...
_
I wrote (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800):
7 ...

7 "... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
7 banning, and I have never said you have written them
7 'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor
7 Kingston) (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:15:14 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

7 ... IF he were interested he could ask Kingston directly
7 what his opinions are and were - even to the

7 specific extent IF authors could respond in the same
7 forum as their books are being criticised.

7

7 But I rather doubt IF Louis Blair will do that, or IF he is
7 actually interested in the topic, since I do not
7 understand IF he is interested in any topic.
_

I wrote (16 Dec 2006 19:27:06 -0800):
7 ... Phil Innes quietly drops the issue of book-banning
7 while making his suggestion.
7
7 I will not follow the suggestion of Phil Innes as I have
7 no desire to be distracted from the question of whether
7 or not there is writing about book-banning in the emails.
7
7 "... [Wasn't Taylor Kingston] the guy who wrote
7 me about what banned authors should have no
7 right of reply at ChessCafe's own forum? ..."
7 - Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT)
7
7 "... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
7 banning, and I have never said you have written them
7 'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor
7 Kingston) (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:15:14 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 Balir avoids a direct challenge to find out Kingston's
7 attitude for himself,

_
I see no reason why I should comply with the challenge
of Phil Innes as my purpose is to determine whether or
not Phil Innes maintains that there is writing about
book-banning in the Taylor Kingston emails. Only Phil
Innes knows what he maintains.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 while suggesting I 'dropped' the issue. ROFL

_

What I actually wrote:
_
"Phil Innes quietly drops the issue of
book-banning while making his suggestion."

- Louis Blair (16 Dec 2006 19:27:06 -0800)
_
As everyone can see for themselves, book-banning
is not mentioned in the Sat, 16 Dec 2006
14:56:05 GMT Phil Innes suggestion (quoted above).

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 WHAT does [the sentence about being distracted]
7 mean in plain English? Is that "I am not interested
7 in the subject of book banning" ? ...

_
No. I am interested in whether or not Phil Innes
maintains that there is writing about book-banning
in the Taylor Kingston emails.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 ... Does that mean " I am interested in the subject
7 of book banning, and want no distractions" ?

_
No. I am interested in whether or not Phil Innes
maintains that there is writing about book-banning
in the Taylor Kingston emails.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 If he doesn't want to be distracted [by me], ...

_
An incorrect hypothesis. I do not want to be distracted
by suggestion that have nothing to do with learning
about what Phil Innes maintains.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 why doesn't he do as I suggest.

_
Only Phil Innes knows what he maintains.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 The LUDICROUS Blair demands information from me,

_
Surely, Phil Innes knows what he maintains. Phil Innes

wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately

vague, would he?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 but can't even answer the simplest question directly. I
7 have no idea of what his answer means

_
"If Phil Innes has trouble with ordinary words
in English he should consult a dictionary."
- Louis Blair (14 Mar 2006 12:25:52 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 - except that he seems compeltely insincere.

_
Phil Innes has no facts to justify that nonsense.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 If anyone wants to know Kingston's attitude, then ask
7 him directly.

_
Only Phil Innes knows what he maintains.
_

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):
7 ... the lazy-duo, who have now stopped disputing my

7 'claim' that the thread exists, ...
_
I wrote (16 Dec 2006 22:03:56 -0800):
7 ... Nonsense for which Phil Innes should apologize
7 promptly. In this discussion, I have not disputed any
7 claim that "the thread exists". Phil Innes has no quote
7 (or anything else specific) to back up such foolishness
7 because nothing of the sort exists. ...

_
Phil Innes responds (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:12:57 GMT)
by quoting part of my 16 Dec 2006 22:30:02 -0800 note:
7 "Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote ...

7 > Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:48:50 GMT):
7 >

7 > 7 ... Is what I wrote ACTUALLY IN DISPUTE? ...
7 >
7 > _
7 > Example:
7 > _
7 > "... Another poster comments that the
7 > moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'. ..."
7 > - Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT)
7 > _
7 > "... That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:46 pm
7 > Timothy Sawmiller note [about Herbert
7 > Vaughn]. Herbert Vaughn is not the
7 > moderator. ..." - Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006
7 > 12:19:48 -0800)
7 ...
7 Blair writes in utterly idiotic fashion to distort even
7 his own intention. If he has some interest in the
7 SUBJECT MATTER of the post he might indicate
7 it clearly, in a non-diffident sentence, or continue
7 as he does here, to contradict not me, but himself.

_
Ridiculous. There is a difference between
_
(1) disputing a claim that a thread exists
_
and
_
(2) disputing the Phil Innes description of a note
in a thread.
_
(2) is something that I have done in this discussion.
(1) is not something that I have done in this discussion.
_
Without further delay, Phil Innes should apologize for
trying to portray me as ever having done (1) in this
discussion.
_
My current interest, at the moment, is to correct the
misleading Phil Innes statements.

[Mark Houlsby]

In changing the subject heading to: "Holsby - answer this", I assume
that you refer to me, Ines? (sic)

Chess One wrote:

> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Seek psychiatric help, Phil... you really need it! Your really needing
> > psychiatric help is the reason why I receive plaudits when I entreat
> > you so to do.... you *have* noticed the plaudits, haven't you?
>
> A challenge awaits you at the end of this post Houslby - and if you do not
> perform the challenge, then what you have said reflects on you.
>

Ok. I'm your Huckleberry. Do go on...

>
> > Why must I state my own interest? Merely to satisfy *your* curiosity?
>
> Do you have some inhibition about saying why you command anbd condemn
> others, Yes!
>

No! I say it over and over! You ignore it over and over!

> You are just an arrogant abuser who can't say why he wants to command
> others - while forever questioning them.
>

Well, others might disagree with that assessment...

> > Simple really: you have characterised the apportioning of $10,000 a
> > scandal. Whether or not you intend it to be, this is a serious
> > accusation. In time, it may prove that you are justified in employing
> > the term: "scandal". It may prove that you are not justified.
>
> In time awarding $50,000 with no bids then $10,000 with no bids /may/ be
> thought not a scandal?
>

It may, indeed, if it works out, and most folks are happy with the
deal...
consider it to have been well spent. Indeed, that could be true even of
folks
who *may* consider the amount to have been a little on the high side.

Is it *definitely* a scandal? What *specifically* makes it a scandal
*for
certain*?

> What I reported was what members wrote at the USCF forum. Is that itself
> reprehensible?

No, but the manner in which you did it was.

> Is there anything odd about it at all?

Yes, one wonders why, as *you* have suggested yourself, it could not
have
*remained confined* to that forum, and resolved here. Certainly, *that*
is odd.

> Sure it is a serious
> accusation by the members, and what Mark Houslby may not in time be 'a
> scandal' is hardly justification for calling reporting of members interests
> in terms of insanity.
>

The insanity, Phil, is manifest in your unusual behaviour. My pointing
out
your being mentally ill has received plaudits *precisely because* other
people
who know you have been *similarly affected* by that behaviour of yours
which,
clearly, is the product of a mental disorder.

For the sake of your own health, you need to see a psychiatrist.

> > In making such a statement, however, you place certain obligations upon
> > yourself, one of which is to identify clearly what your sources are.
>
> You are fond of command - eh? If awarding money with no performance criteria
> is not a scandal for you, what do you think a 'scandal' is?
>

If you want a *definition* of scandal, I'll go with the dictionary, I
think:

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
scan·dal /'skændl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[skan-dl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun,
verb, -daled, -dal·ing or (especially British) -dalled, -dal·ling.
-noun 1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.
3. damage to reputation; public disgrace.
4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip.
5. a person whose conduct brings disgrace or offense.
-verb (used with object) 6. British Dialect. to defame (someone) by
spreading scandal.
7. Obsolete. to disgrace."

If you want examples:

Profumo

President G. W. Bush's having declared the war in Iraq to be over, when
*still* there are people being killed there.

Union Carbide's mistreatment of the people of Bhopal, India *after* the
disaster which wrecked its plant.

Thalidomide.

Those are scandals.

> > In your case, without your revealing your source,
>
> I DID reveal the source - in fact YOU asked me to post all 75 messages here.

Well, if that's what it takes for the subject to be properly understood
in this forum, then, since you introduced it here, that may well be
what you have, in fact, to do.
The point is that *in importing the topic here* you placed *yourself*
under an obligation which you have singularly failed to fulfil.

> Now you know the source, which remains uncontested, what does it mean to you
> to now understand that this is from USCF members?

It means exactly what I have just said. Ok, it's from USCF members...
but *where's the beef, Phil*? Why is it a scandal? Is it a scandal
because you would have spent the money differently?
Is it a scandal because how the money got to be spent was not *your*
decision? How does your characterising it as a scandal *help* the USCF
and its members? These are all questions which,
merely by dint of your having introduced the topic to this forum *it is
your responsibility to answer*.

> You fail to answer the
> question I put you -0 instead you seek to condemn the reporter.
>

I just answered it. Or did you mean another question? If you *do* mean
another question, do you intend to tell me which one, or do I have to
guess?

> > the implication is
> > that you *invented* it.
>
> So you insist that it does not exist

No, I don't. Look up "implication". Dimwit.

> - you fail to look for yourself.

Phil - I DON'T KNOW ***WHERE*** to look. Anyone else would provide *at
least* a link to the appropriate forum, probably to the *thread* in
question. That's what I'd do. You do neither.
This does not help your cause.

Incidentally I *have* looked, I couldn't find it either in Google or in
Yahoo!... it's up to you to *tell* me where to look.

> You do
> not ask others if it exists, and you continue to make defamatory ideas.
>

"...make defamatory ideas." What exactly does that mean?

> It is you Holsby who is lacking here.

How so?

> You are exposed for your trash.

That would explain all the laughter behind my back... no, wait...
*you're* the one who is getting all the bad press... How can this be?

> You
> who do not look.

I did look. I spent quite some time, in fact.

>You call names without knowing anything. You!
>

Not so. For example, I know that there are 1,609,344mm in a mile. I
know all the words to: "Edith and the Kingpin" by Joni Mitchell.

I know both White's *and* Black's first move in the Sicilian Defence. I
know the valency of all of the "noble gases". I could go on....

> > You have a long track record of *inventing*
> > evidence and then later, when you have been caught red-handed,
> > performing your customary volte-face, and denying all knowledge.
>
> The HOUSLBY CHALLENGE: Specifically let me turn this on you - and if you
> wish to state that the material exists, then presumably you will retract
> your [abstract] shit-talk and calm down, otherwise the term net-nazi suits
> you well.
>
> I wait your response.
>

You "wait" my response, eh? You're quite sure that, for example, you
don't "weight" my response? OK.

Incidentally, I could weasel out of this simply on the grounds that you
misspelt my name...AGAIN... but I'm not going to do that.

One thing... what *exactly* have you challenged me to do, here? Please
express it in plain English, the above is gibberish.

I promise, as soon as I find out *exactly* WHAT THE FUCK THE CHALLENGE
ACTUALLY REQUIRES OF ME.... I'm onto it.

Mark

[The Historian]

Mark Houlsby wrote:

(Snip)

> >You call names without knowing anything. You!
> >
>
> Not so. For example, I know that there are 1,609,344mm in a mile. I
> know all the words to: "Edith and the Kingpin" by Joni Mitchell.
>
> I know both White's *and* Black's first move in the Sicilian Defence. I
> know the valency of all of the "noble gases". I could go on....

Somewhere in Cornwall:

Mabel. (coming forward)
Hold, monsters! Ere your pirate caravanserai
Proceed, against our will, to wed us all,
Just bear in mind that we are Wards in Chancery,
And father is Mark Houlsby!

Samuel. (cowed)
We'd better pause, or danger may befall,
Their father is Mark Houlsby.

Girls.
Yes, yes; he is Mark Houlsby!

Mark Houlsby:
Yes, yes, I am Mark Houlsby!

Samuel.
For he is Mark Houlsby!

All.
He is! Hurrah for Mark Houlsby!

Mark Houlsby:
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be Mark Houlsby!

All.
It is! Hurrah for Mark Houlsby"

SONG

I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,
I know the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus' uniform:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery-
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy-
You'll say a better Mark Houlsby has never sat a-gee.

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby.

[Mark Houlsby]

The Historian wrote:

Bruceski!

[Louis Blair]

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:34:41 GMT):

7 ... What I reported was what members wrote at the USCF
7 forum. ...

_

"... people [in the forum] who plainly resent such

political largesse, without even attempting any

accounting for their actions" - Phil Innes (Sat,

16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT)

_
"... Who, other than Phil Innes, believes that

there is no 'attempting' to 'account' 'for their

actions'? ..." - Louis Blair (17 Dec 2006
01:15:24 -0800)

[The Historian]

Mark Houlsby wrote:
>
> Bruceski!

Thank you.

[Rob]

Correct spelling is "brewski". UNless of course you were inplying a
Polish surname to NB.

[Rob]

Mark Houlsby wrote:
> The Historian wrote:<snipped... yawn>.
>
> Bruceski!

Correct spelling is "brewski". Unless you were imparting a
Polish surname to NB.

[Louis Blair]

Mark Houlsby wrote (17 Dec 2006 15:52:01 -0800):
7 ... Bruceski!

_
Rob Mitchell wrote (17 Dec 2006 21:48:34 -0800):

7 Correct spelling is "brewski". Unless you were imparting
7 a Polish surname to NB.

_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: Bruce Draney <bdr...@novia.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: Still confused - Q to Al Lawrence and others
Date: 2 Sep 2003 17:13:13 -0500

John Fernandez wrote:
>
> >Maybe somewhat true, but I am curious in
> >who was in the driver's seat and hit the tree.
> >
> >Aviv
>
> Actually, this is how it went:
>
> Some may say the car started swerving as early as when Denis Barry was at the
> wheel. Al Lawrence was too busy with B&E, so they didn't notice the flat. Then
> Schultz and Cavallo hopped in the car, but noticed that it was bearing right
> really badly, so they tried upgrading the car's computer. Of course, the tire
> was flat. The computer was fine. The car dinged off a tree, and they were gone.
>
> Then we had Smith and De Feis. Smith fell asleep at the wheel, and De Feis was
> just in the back seat the whole time trying to fix his resume. The car was
> grating along the concrete divider for some 2 years. Then Redman came in, and
> talked about how we weren't hitting any trees anymore, even though the metal on
> the side of the car was starting to melt.
>
> Then it got turned over to Niro and McCrary. They pulled away from the wall
> hard, and were very proud that they were in they were in the middle of the
> road. Of course, the only reason they were in the middle was because they were
> heading over to the other side of the road where they saw an exit for
> Crossville. At some point Niro hopped out and decided to hitchike the way to
> Crossville, while McCrary thought Niro was still driving. The car hit a huge
> sequoia dead on.
>
> Now Beatriz and Hanke are pushing the totaled car somewhere, while Paul Truong
> is quick to emphasise that the back of the car was not damaged at all, and that
> our superstar mechanics will fix it all, and the dents will be fixed by
> stuffing the chassis of the car with thousands of opening requests to Susan
> Polgar.
>
> John Fernandez

I'm starting a new award category for posts like this. It's going to
be called a Bruceski. Anytime someone posts something like this, which
kind of reminds me of myself, I'm going to award them a Bruceski.

If you get 10 Bruceskis, the next time I see you either here in Omaha,
or at a tournament if I ever attend another tournament, I'll buy you a
Bruceski, for your sense of humor.

Best Regards,

Bruce
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Mark Houlsby]

Rob wrote:

You see, Rob, as the impeccable Dr. Blair just pointed out to you, *in
these groups* THE CORRECT SPELLING IS "Bruceski".

You don't know shit.

Shut the fuck up and go away.

[Chess One]

"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message

> > Simple really: you have characterised the apportioning of $10,000 a

> > scandal. Whether or not you intend it to be, this is a serious
> > accusation. In time, it may prove that you are justified in employing
> > the term: "scandal". It may prove that you are not justified.
>
> In time awarding $50,000 with no bids then $10,000 with no bids /may/ be
> thought not a scandal?
>

It may, indeed, if it works out, and most folks are happy with the
deal...
consider it to have been well spent. Indeed, that could be true even of
folks
who *may* consider the amount to have been a little on the high side.

Is it *definitely* a scandal? What *specifically* makes it a scandal
*for
certain*?

--
We seem to have different opinions on what constitutes 'scandal'. I would
say it is a fair assessment of those who wrote at Nolandland to think these
actions scandalous. I don't know what a scandal would be for you, since you
have not said. But since you ask for specifics, the nature of the complaints
is /not/ the amount of money awarded, but its lack of performance criteria.
Since this follows a similar incident involving $50,000 also with no
performance criteria and for no evident $50,000 value, I would not insist on
the word scandal is a stronger term should be used instead.

> What I reported was what members wrote at the USCF forum. Is that itself
> reprehensible?

No, but the manner in which you did it was.

I will not chase these vagueries.

> Is there anything odd about it at all?

Yes, one wonders why, as *you* have suggested yourself, it could not
have
*remained confined* to that forum, and resolved here. Certainly, *that*
is odd.

--
I do not understand your statement - you wonder? <shrug>

> Sure it is a serious
> accusation by the members, and what Mark Houslby may not in time be 'a
> scandal' is hardly justification for calling reporting of members
> interests
> in terms of insanity.
>

The insanity, Phil, is manifest in your unusual behaviour. My pointing
out
your being mentally ill has received plaudits *precisely because* other
people
who know you have been *similarly affected* by that behaviour of yours
which,
clearly, is the product of a mental disorder.

For the sake of your own health, you need to see a psychiatrist.

--
It seems to me you have actually offered no model of mental health yourself,
and when questioned have remarked that 'one wonders' and on 'the manner',
and also included imperatives on how I /should/ behave, while not making
clear why administration of chess money awarded by USCF should not be
reported in a chess.politics thread.

On such slight foundations as these you invoke a group who have done no
more. I say this is no appeal to reason, and your conclusions are thereby
unreasonable.

If you want examples:

Profumo

Thalidomide.

Those are scandals.

--
Your opinion seems to be that the serial awarding of other people's money
without open canvassing of candidates, and without performance criteria, is
not a scandal. Okay. I understand you do not like the word scandal, but this
objection to the term that describes the behavior is not in itself to
dismiss what is described. How should the people who objected to the matter
be characterised?

Because you, Mark Houslby, have not done so, but think fit to disagree over
a single descriptive word, does not make others insane!

I don't mind if you disagree with me that the first two dictionary
definitions you offer are not appropriate:

1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.

But then the issue remains of the basis of your own term to describe these
actions - a term which is current missing - and again, to call people insane
about the use of a single word [since you want specificity] is itself not
very bright, no? Since it is my opinion that the readers at Nolandland did
indeed take offense at a fault and a misdeed, and they did think it was a
discreditable action. To disagree with reporting those people here, for no
evident reason you can state over all these posts, while calling others
insane, does not follow. It follows no rational sequence of understanding,
and is an abnormal use of words.

> > In your case, without your revealing your source,
>
> I DID reveal the source - in fact YOU asked me to post all 75 messages
> here.

Well, if that's what it takes for the subject to be properly understood
in this forum, then, since you introduced it here, that may well be
what you have, in fact, to do.

--
I asked YOU why YOU wanted me to post items here. But YOU dissapear
yourself, and do not say why you can't go and look yourself!

YOU also do not ask those who can and have looked if whatever YOU want to
verify or contest is true. Again you offer no credible reason for your
demands, nor for your conclusions.

The point is that *in importing the topic here* you placed *yourself*
under an obligation which you have singularly failed to fulfil.

--
As you can see, I do not agree. You are unable to state why YOU want it
here! I don't think its necessary simply because somebody demands it - why
not do as I wrote in the previous paragraph, and say why you can't read the
material where it is currently posted? Writers in newsgroups refer to URL's
all the time, since the material may be lengthy, copyrighted, or serial. If
you are unable to read material elsewhere, then that at least explain your
request. But for some unspoken reason you have not explained YOUR need, not
mine. No other writer contests that the material exists, nor that the
extracts of comments I made are not true. Are you being so very rational
here? It seems as though you demand things of me without also providing me
any reason to perform them.

> Now you know the source, which remains uncontested, what does it mean to
> you
> to now understand that this is from USCF members?

It means exactly what I have just said. Ok, it's from USCF members...
but *where's the beef, Phil*? Why is it a scandal? Is it a scandal
because you would have spent the money differently?

--
What do the members think it is? I do not quite think you have grasped the
issue, although you conclude on it with rhetorical questions. But perhaps
things are different where you are, and like USCF you or your organisation
have made two recent awards of money without bidding totalling $60,000, but
without describing any bench-marks or other criteria for performance? This
seems to be the member's beef. If you do not think this is scandalous, and
in fact is both common and reasonable, then I suggest that wherever you are
the term scandal is used differently, as is the distribution of money.

Is it a scandal because how the money got to be spent was not *your*
decision? How does your characterising it as a scandal *help* the USCF
and its members? These are all questions which,
merely by dint of your having introduced the topic to this forum *it is
your responsibility to answer*.

--
I think I really challenge your ideas here, since you have not mentioned the
beef is with accounting for the money spent, and the reporting is of members
who have said so. Certainly these members do not seem to think that USCF's
behavior is helping USCF!

---

> - you fail to look for yourself.

Phil - I DON'T KNOW ***WHERE*** to look. Anyone else would provide *at
least* a link to the appropriate forum, probably to the *thread* in
question. That's what I'd do. You do neither.
This does not help your cause.

--
Well, Mark, since I have offered this reference a dozen times already to
both Kingston and Blair, and since you call me a 'dimwit' above, then I must
say to you that by your answers you do not understand what the members
complain about, have not said why in your opinion we should not hear about
it here, and since I also suggested to you to ask someone else if you can't
reference the material, it seems to me that you yourself are not being
particularly active bright or attentive or clear, and it is your own wits
which are dimmed - and I really don't think this is my fault at all!

Phil Innes

Incidentally I *have* looked, I couldn't find it either in Google or in
Yahoo!... it's up to you to *tell* me where to look.

---------

[Chess One]

"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message

news:1166400502.2...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...

Who other than Louis Blair, questions it? After writing that he did not
contest the material, he on the same day contested it, now he asks who ...
etc, and if he doesn't understand what people asked for, ie, some accounting
for the awarded funds.

I will also ask Blair to take his stuff out of this thread, since I am
investigatinghere what Houslby thinks sane or even reasonable, since he is
so free to object to supposed abuse, while committing abuses himself - in
short, does he proclaim one thing and do another?

If Blair has no understanding of the issue, then perhaps he could write
about another topic, possible on chess subjects?

PI

[Rob]

Mark Houlsby wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
> > Mark Houlsby wrote:
> > > The Historian wrote:<snipped... yawn>.
> > >
> > > Bruceski!
> >
> > Correct spelling is "brewski". Unless you were imparting a
> > Polish surname to NB.

> You see, Rob, as the impeccable Dr. Blair just pointed out to you, *in
> these groups* THE CORRECT SPELLING IS "Bruceski".

Oh, like these groups are the world. ?

> You don't know shit.

You are right. I don't know you at all.

> Shut the fuck up and go away.

Oh? You said a bad word! You lose Markie-Farkie!

Rob

[Chess One]

"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message

news:1166441164.3...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

Is this a person who complains about abuse?

A Brewski is what ordinary people call a beer in the USA. In these threads
we named a joke after a character called Bruce, so respelled it. Unlike Rob
Mitchell, Houslby here, does know shit. And that, so it seems, is all.

Phil Innes

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Simple really: you have characterised the apportioning of $10,000 a
> > > scandal. Whether or not you intend it to be, this is a serious
> > > accusation. In time, it may prove that you are justified in employing
> > > the term: "scandal". It may prove that you are not justified.
> >
> > In time awarding $50,000 with no bids then $10,000 with no bids /may/ be
> > thought not a scandal?
> >
>
> It may, indeed, if it works out, and most folks are happy with the
> deal...
> consider it to have been well spent. Indeed, that could be true even of
> folks
> who *may* consider the amount to have been a little on the high side.
>
> Is it *definitely* a scandal? What *specifically* makes it a scandal
> *for
> certain*?
>
> --
> We seem to have different opinions on what constitutes 'scandal'. I would
> say it is a fair assessment of those who wrote at Nolandland to think these
> actions scandalous. I don't know what a scandal would be for you, since you
> have not said.

Yes I have, fuckwit. Once again: Profumo. G.W. Bush on the Iraq war.
Union Carbide's treatment of the people of Bhopal, India. Thalidomide.

Stop making yourself out to be more of a fucking imbecile than you
actually are...

> But since you ask for specifics, the nature of the complaints
> is /not/ the amount of money awarded, but its lack of performance criteria.

Complaint.... ok. Scandal? Hmmm... not certain...

> Since this follows a similar incident involving $50,000 also with no
> performance criteria and for no evident $50,000 value, I would not insist on
> the word scandal is a stronger term should be used instead.
>

I see. And you assert that *your insisting* is enough to make it a
scandal, are you?

This is the point, Phil. You live on Planet Innes. The rest of us live
on Planet Earth.

>
> > What I reported was what members wrote at the USCF forum. Is that itself
> > reprehensible?
>
> No, but the manner in which you did it was.
>
> I will not chase these vagueries.
>

That's a relief.

> > Is there anything odd about it at all?
>
> Yes, one wonders why, as *you* have suggested yourself, it could not
> have
> *remained confined* to that forum, and resolved here. Certainly, *that*
> is odd.
>
> --
> I do not understand your statement - you wonder? <shrug>
>

I must admit that it contains a typo. I meant: "...resolved there." not
"...resolved here."

Now, the point is this: what *exactly* did you hope to achieve by
importing the issues to these groups?

The opportunity to shrug?

> > Sure it is a serious
> > accusation by the members, and what Mark Houslby may not in time be 'a
> > scandal' is hardly justification for calling reporting of members
> > interests
> > in terms of insanity.
> >
>
> The insanity, Phil, is manifest in your unusual behaviour. My pointing
> out
> your being mentally ill has received plaudits *precisely because* other
> people
> who know you have been *similarly affected* by that behaviour of yours
> which,
> clearly, is the product of a mental disorder.
>
> For the sake of your own health, you need to see a psychiatrist.
>
> --
> It seems to me you have actually offered no model of mental health yourself,
> and when questioned have remarked that 'one wonders' and on 'the manner',
> and also included imperatives on how I /should/ behave, while not making
> clear why administration of chess money awarded by USCF should not be
> reported in a chess.politics thread.
>

It's actually easier to define in terms of how you should *not* behave.

For example, you should not entreat someone to do something, then
chastise them when they do what you ask.

This is a clear sign of your being mentally unbalanced. The fact that
you do that sort of thing repeatedly is the reason why I receive
plaudits when I entreat you to see a psychiatrist.

> On such slight foundations as these you invoke a group who have done no
> more. I say this is no appeal to reason, and your conclusions are thereby
> unreasonable.
>

Their seeming unreasonable is merely *your opinion*. Quite a range of
people have indicated tacit support for my point-of-view. Some have
expressed explicit support. I have already told you their names, but
I'm willing to do so again if your trolling nature requires it of me...

Besides Rob Mitchell.... who is on your side, Phil?

Need they be characterised at all? If so, why?

> Because you, Mark Houslby, have not done so, but think fit to disagree over
> a single descriptive word, does not make others insane!
>

No, indeed. The insanity is manifest in the behaviour, of which there
is a plethora of examples. Should I cite some, again, deranged troll?

> I don't mind if you disagree with me that the first two dictionary
> definitions you offer are not appropriate:
> 1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
> 2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.
>
> But then the issue remains of the basis of your own term to describe these
> actions - a term which is current missing - and again, to call people insane
> about the use of a single word [since you want specificity] is itself not
> very bright, no?

Indeed, that would *not* be very bright, but that is *not* the reason
for my describing you as deranged.

DUH!

> Since it is my opinion that the readers at Nolandland did
> indeed take offense at a fault and a misdeed, and they did think it was a
> discreditable action. To disagree with reporting those people here, for no
> evident reason you can state over all these posts, while calling others
> insane, does not follow.

No, indeed, what marks the insanity here is your sweeping gestures,
your avoiding the posting of even the most basic background
information, your taking offence at the completely inoffensive, your...

> It follows no rational sequence of understanding,
> and is an abnormal use of words.
>

Under the circumstances, it is completely apposite, and that is why I
receive plaudits for it.

>
> > > In your case, without your revealing your source,
> >
> > I DID reveal the source - in fact YOU asked me to post all 75 messages
> > here.
>
> Well, if that's what it takes for the subject to be properly understood
> in this forum, then, since you introduced it here, that may well be
> what you have, in fact, to do.
>
> --
> I asked YOU why YOU wanted me to post items here. But YOU dissapear
> yourself, and do not say why you can't go and look yourself!
>

It took Dr. Blair to tell me where to look. Now that I know where to
look, I have joined the USCF, simply in order to be able to read the
fora. I shall not be able to read the fora until I receive an issue of
CL and get to read my PIN. When that happens, I shall read the fora,
and try to get to the bottom of whatever-the-fuck-it-is that has got
you worked up this time.

> YOU also do not ask those who can and have looked if whatever YOU want to
> verify or contest is true. Again you offer no credible reason for your
> demands, nor for your conclusions.
>

Other people evidently disagree with that assessment.

>
> The point is that *in importing the topic here* you placed *yourself*
> under an obligation which you have singularly failed to fulfil.
>
> --
> As you can see, I do not agree. You are unable to state why YOU want it
> here!

Erm.... you already brought it here, fuckwit.

> I don't think its necessary simply because somebody demands it - why
> not do as I wrote in the previous paragraph, and say why you can't read the
> material where it is currently posted?

The reasons why I couldn't read the material where it is already posted
are:

1) Until Dr. Blair did your legwork for you, and told me where to look,
I had no clue where to look (you had provided none, despite repeated
entreaties...another manifestation of your derangement).

2) I don't yet have a PIN. I do have my very own USCF Membership Card
(which I just printed) but no PIN, yet.

As soon as my first issue of CL arrives, I'm there, foraging in the
fora...

> Writers in newsgroups refer to URL's
> all the time, since the material may be lengthy, copyrighted, or serial. If
> you are unable to read material elsewhere, then that at least explain your
> request. But for some unspoken reason you have not explained YOUR need, not
> mine.

Why should it be spoken? This is Usenet! You have imported the issue
here! If you didn't expect something like this... why did you not? Why
DID you import the issue here, Phil?

> No other writer contests that the material exists,

Newsflash: I don't contest that it exists. All this time I was asking
you where it was, is all. You didn't answer. Dr. Blair did.

> nor that the
> extracts of comments I made are not true.

What I have been saying is that from what *you* have written here it is
impossible to tell. Dr. Blair has been trying to understand what you
mean. Evidently, he cannot. I have been trying to understand what you
mean, and cannot. This is because *as always* there is a problem
*caused* by *your writing*.

> Are you being so very rational
> here?

Yes. Are you?

> It seems as though you demand things of me without also providing me
> any reason to perform them.
>

The reason has been provided several times, you disingenuous fuck.
Taylor has explained it. I have explained it. If you're so dimwitted
that still don't get it, then you should just shut the fuck up about
it.

>
> > Now you know the source, which remains uncontested, what does it mean to
> > you
> > to now understand that this is from USCF members?
>
> It means exactly what I have just said. Ok, it's from USCF members...
> but *where's the beef, Phil*? Why is it a scandal? Is it a scandal
> because you would have spent the money differently?
>
> --
> What do the members think it is? I do not quite think you have grasped the
> issue, although you conclude on it with rhetorical questions. But perhaps
> things are different where you are, and like USCF you or your organisation
> have made two recent awards of money without bidding totalling $60,000, but
> without describing any bench-marks or other criteria for performance? This
> seems to be the member's beef.

Which member? You?

> If you do not think this is scandalous, and
> in fact is both common and reasonable, then I suggest that wherever you are
> the term scandal is used differently, as is the distribution of money.
>

Would that we had that kind of money to distribute.

> Is it a scandal because how the money got to be spent was not *your*
> decision? How does your characterising it as a scandal *help* the USCF
> and its members? These are all questions which,
> merely by dint of your having introduced the topic to this forum *it is
> your responsibility to answer*.
>
> --
> I think I really challenge your ideas here, since you have not mentioned the
> beef is with accounting for the money spent, and the reporting is of members
> who have said so. Certainly these members do not seem to think that USCF's
> behavior is helping USCF!
>

I asked you how *your* characterising it as a scandal helps. How does
it help, Phil?

> ---
>
> > - you fail to look for yourself.
>
> Phil - I DON'T KNOW ***WHERE*** to look. Anyone else would provide *at
> least* a link to the appropriate forum, probably to the *thread* in
> question. That's what I'd do. You do neither.
> This does not help your cause.
>
> --
> Well, Mark, since I have offered this reference a dozen times already to
> both Kingston and Blair, and since you call me a 'dimwit' above, then I must
> say to you that by your answers you do not understand what the members
> complain about, have not said why in your opinion we should not hear about
> it here, and since I also suggested to you to ask someone else if you can't
> reference the material, it seems to me that you yourself are not being
> particularly active bright or attentive or clear, and it is your own wits
> which are dimmed - and I really don't think this is my fault at all!
>

Look, dimwit.... It has taken the efforts of *somebody else* simply to
provide the *most basic information* required to *justify* the issues'
being discussed here *at all*. You act, but don't take responsibility
for your actions. You ask people to provide evidence that you are
wrong. People provide evidence that you are wrong. You insult them. And
on, and on....

Mark Houlsby

[Mark Houlsby]

Rob wrote:

Strange that Neil and I are sitting with Bruceskis... and you have...
er... what do you have, Rob?

Why are you still here?

Mark

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

> "Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
> news:1166400502.2...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> > Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:34:41 GMT):
> >
> > 7 ... What I reported was what members wrote at the USCF
> > 7 forum. ...
> >
> > _
> > "... people [in the forum] who plainly resent such
> > political largesse, without even attempting any
> > accounting for their actions" - Phil Innes (Sat,
> > 16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT)
> > _
> > "... Who, other than Phil Innes, believes that
> > there is no 'attempting' to 'account' 'for their
> > actions'? ..." - Louis Blair (17 Dec 2006
> > 01:15:24 -0800)
>
> Who other than Louis Blair, questions it?

I do. HELLO!

> After writing that he did not
> contest the material, he on the same day contested it, now he asks who ...
> etc, and if he doesn't understand what people asked for, ie, some accounting
> for the awarded funds.
>

Phil, you really need to learn to read.

> I will also ask Blair to take his stuff out of this thread, since I am
> investigatinghere what Houslby thinks sane or even reasonable, since he is
> so free to object to supposed abuse, while committing abuses himself - in
> short, does he proclaim one thing and do another?
>

I'm objecting principally to *your behaviour*, which, as always, is
deranged and trolling in character. More than once you have attacked
Dr. Blair groundlessly.

Such behaviour tends to be unwelcome in newsgroups.

MH

[Matt Nemmers]

Mark Houlsby wrote:
>
> Strange that Neil and I are sitting with Bruceskis... and you have...
> er... what do you have, Rob?

Rob has the prestigious and much-coveted "Piqued Parrot Plaque," Mark.
Awarded on 17 October 2006 in the thread "A first in RGCP history." As
Casey Stengel might say, "You could look it up."

Bruceskis are more common on RGCP -- I have one or two to my credit
somewhere along the line, if I'm not mistaken -- but that lessens their
value. You see, Bruceskis can be awarded to anyone by anyone for a
witty retort, snappy comeback, or thoughtful, intelligent post. The
Triple-P has only been awarded once and *can* only be awarded for one
act, and one act alone. And that act has been attempted by numerous
individuals over the years, all of whom have failed miserably (myself
included) because it's extremely hard to do. So, you might say that
while a Bruceski is equivalent to a Good Conduct Medal, the Triple-P is
equivalent to a Purple Heart.

Thus, it seems (to me) that Rob's award trumps yours and Neil's.

> Why are you still here?
>
> Mark

Very existential. Why *are* we still here?

[Chess One]

"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message

news:1166450503.2...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

Chess One wrote:

--
I see now how you chose to describe your understanding of scandal, to which
presumably Global Thermonuclear War could be added? That is, if there were
someone left around to report on it. What I do not see is this level of
reporting represented in the dictionary definitions you yourself chose to
offer - and as such your own understanding might be thought ideosyncratic,
if not indeed, to scandalise the very word you address ;)

> But since you ask for specifics, the nature of the complaints
> is /not/ the amount of money awarded, but its lack of performance
> criteria.

Complaint.... ok. Scandal? Hmmm... not certain...

--
I am saying you do not understand enough of the issue to which you complain
to engage in conversation about it.

> Since this follows a similar incident involving $50,000 also with no
> performance criteria and for no evident $50,000 value, I would not insist
> on
> the word scandal is a stronger term should be used instead.
>

I see. And you assert that *your insisting* is enough to make it a
scandal, are you?

This is the point, Phil. You live on Planet Innes. The rest of us live
on Planet Earth.

--
Now your comprehension is revealed, since I say "I would not insist" on the
word scandal... , but you take this to mean I actually insist.

> > What I reported was what members wrote at the USCF forum. Is that itself
> > reprehensible?
>
> No, but the manner in which you did it was.
>
> I will not chase these vagueries.
>

That's a relief.

--
The manner of your own commentary is so obscure as to be unanswerable. I do
not decline to discuss anything, and if I ask you a direct question, and you
duck by making vague references like 'manner', I simply say I do not
understand you. Since you were rather insistent on this issue previously, it
seems as though it now does not matter to any degree, therefore I am puzzled
to understand why you wrote at such high-emotional temperature, whicle not
willing to make yourself clear?

> > Is there anything odd about it at all?
>
> Yes, one wonders why, as *you* have suggested yourself, it could not
> have
> *remained confined* to that forum, and resolved here. Certainly, *that*
> is odd.
>
> --
> I do not understand your statement - you wonder? <shrug>
>

I must admit that it contains a typo. I meant: "...resolved there." not
"...resolved here."

--
I do expect the members to try to resolve it there, but chess politics is
the issue /here/, and I commented on its /pattern/ being similar to other
issues at USCF, and which certainly were raised 'here'.

Now, the point is this: what *exactly* did you hope to achieve by
importing the issues to these groups?

--
I already wrote of a need for light and air to relieve political awards -
cited 4 examples of 'awards', all of which deserve examination. You will
also note that in conversations with Randy Bauer, a current board aspirant,
that he is marked for his attitude of asking for perfromance criteria at all
levels of USA. I applaud this initiative, and think it necessary - not least
because people will not pour any money into what is a political sieve. That
is the basis of my interest - what's yours?

The opportunity to shrug?
--
It was your anodyne reply after so much previous heat that occassioned the
shrug. I did not shrug off the issue, but your apparent lack of interest in
it.

--
Perhaps readers here will make their own assessment of who is attempting to
examine any subject, and why, and who of us, for example is doing that, and
indeed, if either of us need a shrink. What we could both discuss with our
respective shrinks, is our basis for awarding money to other people without
any check and blances. I am obviously hung-up about it, so that I feel some
controls are necessary and prudent, as are the members who objected at the
Forum. Whereas I presume you will conduct a different conversation with your
shrink, and say why people should not be obliged to account for awarded
monies - and in fact, why those who do call for these measures are in your
opinion 'insane'.

> On such slight foundations as these you invoke a group who have done no
> more. I say this is no appeal to reason, and your conclusions are thereby
> unreasonable.
>

Their seeming unreasonable is merely *your opinion*. Quite a range of
people have indicated tacit support for my point-of-view. Some have
expressed explicit support. I have already told you their names, but
I'm willing to do so again if your trolling nature requires it of me...

Besides Rob Mitchell.... who is on your side, Phil?

--
So, if 10 1,000 rated players were to examine a game, and declare no
understanding of it, and those who did understand something of it 'insane'
then you would prefer the 10 x 1,000 players who had no insights, to someone
who achieved an insight? maybe this was even the immortal game? The question
is not of who should object, but of what they object. You appear to have
come late to establishing what the issue is, having written several times of
the amount of money, rather than accounting for the money. Would 10 people
who also missaprehended the issue at the forum be 'more right' by virtue of
their numbers?

What side am I on? And what side of what? Is the fact of reporting these
member concerns and recommendations to account for awarded funds to be on
someone's side? I admit that I think it is a prudent measure, and personally
would require some amount of accodunting if the money were my own. I further
think this is not usual, and you would be Nutz@ not to do so.

Is this the issue to which you cite support for your point of view? You
would award money and not ask for any measure of control at all? By all
means be as specific yourelf as you recommend of others.

--
You duck the issue again. Let me remove the 'seems' from my paragraph above,
in that case. You also dislike the word scandal so much, but can't replace
it with a synonym, or word of other value, even though there is nothing in
the dictionary which *insists* as you do, on your definition of the word. In
fact that is your own insistance, no? And it is not substantiated as normal
use.

> Because you, Mark Houslby, have not done so, but think fit to disagree
> over
> a single descriptive word, does not make others insane!
>

No, indeed. The insanity is manifest in the behaviour, of which there
is a plethora of examples. Should I cite some, again, deranged troll?

--
Fear not! What is being exampled in these messages is the degree of our
ability to attend to a subject, and other people, I find, make up their own
minds on who is being attempting to be clear about a chess issue, and who is
writing trollery in newsgroups, with all its lovely side-effects.

> I don't mind if you disagree with me that the first two dictionary
> definitions you offer are not appropriate:
> 1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
> 2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.
>
> But then the issue remains of the basis of your own term to describe these
> actions - a term which is current missing - and again, to call people
> insane
> about the use of a single word [since you want specificity] is itself not
> very bright, no?

Indeed, that would *not* be very bright, but that is *not* the reason
for my describing you as deranged.

DUH!

--
Your DUH! I am afraid, since I am merely answering you in your own terms.
You duck issues when put to you, or are unable to produce them when
questioned to YOUR meaning. I hope you notice that your own supplied
dictionary definitions do not bear out your representation of them. And
sionce these are the first two in the dictionary, then perhaps you will
reconsider what you object to? Of course, you will not like to do this, but
since you made such a fuss about it, in front of the people, how will you
seem in the future if you seem to have slight understanding of even your own
definitions?

> Since it is my opinion that the readers at Nolandland did
> indeed take offense at a fault and a misdeed, and they did think it was a
> discreditable action. To disagree with reporting those people here, for no
> evident reason you can state over all these posts, while calling others
> insane, does not follow.

No, indeed, what marks the insanity here is your sweeping gestures,
your avoiding the posting of even the most basic background
information, your taking offence at the completely inoffensive, your...

--
mark Houlsby offers us new definitions of 'completely inoffensive', which
continuing to insist on the insanity of others, and the f-word as main
adjective. this of course does not make what he says untrue, but does define
the level of conversation where he is, as normal

> It follows no rational sequence of understanding,
> and is an abnormal use of words.
>

Under the circumstances, it is completely apposite, and that is why I
receive plaudits for it.

--
I see! You think stating your resentment, but not stating why chess politics
should not be reported in a newsgroup thread about chess politics, is
'apposite'. Okay, I suppose this qualifies such support as you have gained.

> > > In your case, without your revealing your source,
> >
> > I DID reveal the source - in fact YOU asked me to post all 75 messages
> > here.
>
> Well, if that's what it takes for the subject to be properly understood
> in this forum, then, since you introduced it here, that may well be
> what you have, in fact, to do.

You do not need to understand it in this forum if you can go to the forum
where it is written. What you cannot say is that you cannot do that. It is
your need to have things here, rather than mine. But you are unable to
explain that in simple English.

> --
> I asked YOU why YOU wanted me to post items here. But YOU dissapear
> yourself, and do not say why you can't go and look yourself!
>

It took Dr. Blair to tell me where to look. Now that I know where to
look, I have joined the USCF, simply in order to be able to read the
fora. I shall not be able to read the fora until I receive an issue of
CL and get to read my PIN. When that happens, I shall read the fora,
and try to get to the bottom of whatever-the-fuck-it-is that has got
you worked up this time.

--
Who has been fucking and blinding about this issue? Seems to me you are the
one who is worked up. Who do you think you are kidding Houslby?

> YOU also do not ask those who can and have looked if whatever YOU want to
> verify or contest is true. Again you offer no credible reason for your
> demands, nor for your conclusions.
>

Other people evidently disagree with that assessment.

--
Are you saying that other people agree that you do not need to offer
credible reasons for what you demand of others. They can't be agreeing with
your conclusions, since there is nothing you can conclude, since you haven't
even looked at the material, and keep getting it wrong.

> The point is that *in importing the topic here* you placed *yourself*
> under an obligation which you have singularly failed to fulfil.
>
> --
> As you can see, I do not agree. You are unable to state why YOU want it
> here!

Erm.... you already brought it here, fuckwit.

--
Is this how you talk where you are. Hey- FUCKWIT - do this now - no reasons
are necessary - OBEY ME AT ONCE! You are like a characature of the Red
Queen! How imperious of you to command us to your will, encouraged only by
abuse.

> I don't think its necessary simply because somebody demands it - why
> not do as I wrote in the previous paragraph, and say why you can't read
> the
> material where it is currently posted?

The reasons why I couldn't read the material where it is already posted
are:

1) Until Dr. Blair did your legwork for you, and told me where to look,
I had no clue where to look (you had provided none, despite repeated
entreaties...another manifestation of your derangement).

2) I don't yet have a PIN. I do have my very own USCF Membership Card
(which I just printed) but no PIN, yet.

As soon as my first issue of CL arrives, I'm there, foraging in the
fora...

--
You did not say you could not access the material. And it was the Good Dr.
Balir who cut my first reference to the material. Since you take Rob
Mitchell to task for his innocence of the word Bruceski, then I can
understand your own innocence about Nolandland. Though, I am sure I
mentioned the USCF forum at least a dozen times so far.

> Writers in newsgroups refer to URL's
> all the time, since the material may be lengthy, copyrighted, or serial.
> If
> you are unable to read material elsewhere, then that at least explain your
> request. But for some unspoken reason you have not explained YOUR need,
> not
> mine.

Why should it be spoken? This is Usenet! You have imported the issue
here! If you didn't expect something like this... why did you not? Why
DID you import the issue here, Phil?

--
Well why not? This is a chess politcs newsgroup. What other reason is
necessary? You objection is OBSCURE Houslby. YOUR objection is obscure - get
it? Your objection to referencing the material is unusual. You offer no
reasons why it should not be referenced - you simply repeat a question about
why chess politics should be discussed in a chess politics newsgroup.

Take a look at your own attitude, since I am making sure everyone else does!
It is not only okay to talk chess politics in a chess politics newsgroup -
it is actually preferred!

> No other writer contests that the material exists,

Newsflash: I don't contest that it exists. All this time I was asking
you where it was, is all. You didn't answer. Dr. Blair did.

> nor that the
> extracts of comments I made are not true.

What I have been saying is that from what *you* have written here it is
impossible to tell.

--
ROFL - listen- NO ONE contests that it does not exist - but you.

It is NOT 'impossible to tell' you say, but you do not allow it to be
possible, because you are an arrogant abuse lout who wont ask anyone else if
its true - preferring to utter defamatory comments without while admitting
you know nothing.

Dr. Blair has been trying to understand what you
mean. Evidently, he cannot. I have been trying to understand what you
mean, and cannot. This is because *as always* there is a problem
*caused* by *your writing*.

> Are you being so very rational
> here?

Yes. Are you?

> It seems as though you demand things of me without also providing me
> any reason to perform them.
>

The reason has been provided several times, you disingenuous fuck.
Taylor has explained it. I have explained it. If you're so dimwitted
that still don't get it, then you should just shut the fuck up about
it.

--
In all the above you AVOID offering any reason - instead think people owe
you something - because you call them a disingeneous fuck.Get someone to
agree with you that this is decent expression - I mean decent enough to
actually find something out.

> Now you know the source, which remains uncontested, what does it mean to
> > you
> > to now understand that this is from USCF members?
>
> It means exactly what I have just said. Ok, it's from USCF members...
> but *where's the beef, Phil*? Why is it a scandal? Is it a scandal
> because you would have spent the money differently?

I asked you why you write - and you do not answer. You do not know the beef
since you haven't even read the thread - neither have you noticed the
content of the thread - except to say that you yourself can't understand why
$50,000 then $10,000 more in unbid awarded contracts without performance
criteria should cause even a raised eyebrow!

R
O

F

L

!

!

> --
> What do the members think it is? I do not quite think you have grasped the
> issue, although you conclude on it with rhetorical questions. But perhaps
> things are different where you are, and like USCF you or your organisation
> have made two recent awards of money without bidding totalling $60,000,
> but
> without describing any bench-marks or other criteria for performance? This
> seems to be the member's beef.

Which member? You?

--
The members I reported. But you duck the main issue again. let me take it
that you either do not understand why any performance is ncecessary in a
contract, or that you disagree that there should be any. And, permit me to
say these are not normal attitudes, and to so significantly duck
'understanding' all these SPECIFICS, does not recommend your intelligence.

<....>

> --
> Well, Mark, since I have offered this reference a dozen times already to
> both Kingston and Blair, and since you call me a 'dimwit' above, then I
> must
> say to you that by your answers you do not understand what the members
> complain about, have not said why in your opinion we should not hear about
> it here, and since I also suggested to you to ask someone else if you
> can't
> reference the material, it seems to me that you yourself are not being
> particularly active bright or attentive or clear, and it is your own wits
> which are dimmed - and I really don't think this is my fault at all!
>

Look, dimwit.... It has taken the efforts of *somebody else* simply to
provide the *most basic information* required to *justify* the issues'
being discussed here *at all*. You act, but don't take responsibility
for your actions. You ask people to provide evidence that you are
wrong. People provide evidence that you are wrong. You insult them. And
on, and on....

--
How general vague and abstract we both are! But I think that by this post
the reader can assess who is kinda vague, and who ain't. Who joined the
vague-abuser club, and who doesn't need to justify writing chess politics in
a chess politics newsgroup.

We also end on 'evidence' I am wrong about something, whatever that
somethingh is. If Houslby has something to say about the issues the members
raised at the USCF forum he could reply. That is the issue. If he does not
understand the issue, or requires another 6 credit course in expressing
himself, and the good Dr. Blair will oblige him, then I presume we will hear
more when Houslby will attempt the topic, as such.

Phil Innes

Mark Houlsby

[Kenneth Sloan]

Damned newbies!

[Mark Houlsby]

Chess One wrote:

I agree. The onus is *upon you* to alleviate this deficiency, as has
been explained to you upon numerous occasions. My guess is that *you*
do not understand enough about the issue either--not enough to enable
you *legitimately* to state baldly: "...which is this week's scandal."
which itself, incidentally, implies not only that this is a scandal,
but that there was a scandal the week before this one, and the week
before that, and the week before that,... and also that there was a
scandal the week after this one,...

This is *why* I have been saying to you: if you were to swear in a
court of law that this is, indeed, a scandal, then are you *certain*
that you would not be convicted of perjury? What makes you certain that
you would not?

Dr. Blair has evidently been searching diligently, and his researches
seem to indicate that that'd be your fate--conviction for perjury. Add
to that the groundless, unprovoked and unrepentant attacks upon Dr.
Blair's impeccable character, and...you're really not doing very well,
Phil.

> > Since this follows a similar incident involving $50,000 also with no
> > performance criteria and for no evident $50,000 value, I would not insist
> > on
> > the word scandal is a stronger term should be used instead.
> >
>
> I see. And you assert that *your insisting* is enough to make it a
> scandal, are you?
>
> This is the point, Phil. You live on Planet Innes. The rest of us live
> on Planet Earth.
>
> --
> Now your comprehension is revealed, since I say "I would not insist" on the
> word scandal... , but you take this to mean I actually insist.
>

That's progress then. So you are admitting that your having written, at
the top of your first post: "...which is this week's scandal..." was as
rash as it was stupid?

Good. That means that I win the argument. That means that Dr. Blair's
position is vindicated, and that you owe him *at least* two apologies.

Set to it....

<snip>

Mark Houlsby