No word from Innes on this?
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
"...during his stay, he [Sam Sloan] made a number of completely
inappropriate solicitation to me, a minor at that time, and he was
promptly and firmly told no. To his credit, he did not try it again.
But he tried with others. Since that time, I tried to be polite to Mr.
Sloan in public but I tried to avoid him as much as I could. I am not
surprised about the inappropriate sexual conducts that he claimed in
the past. He believes that it is OK." - Susan Polgar, from her weblog.
How does Mr. Innes manage to work with GM Polgar while supporting the
election of a man who tried to molest her? And does Mr. Parr have
anything to say about Mr. Sloan's actions?
Chess One
"Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro" <Spam...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:1155382737.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
What was supported was the election itself. There is no implications of
interpersonal abuse in the above text, and only an idiot on the scale of a
Neil Brennan could suppose there was and want to 'explore it' in public
since he is devoted to speculating and promoting the maximum amount of
dissention on the chess scene as his wits allow him.
As with another writer here who speculated non-stop on filth by obsessing on
it for [how many?] 200 days straight, I was far more worried about such
repressives acting out their fantasies than in Sloan for stimulating them.
For sure, those who only commit themselves to this base level of inquiry
have much more in the closet that Sloan has out of it.
Phil Innes
Ray Gordon
> inappropriate solicitation to me, a minor at that time, and he was
> promptly and firmly told no. To his credit, he did not try it again.
> But he tried with others. Since that time, I tried to be polite to Mr.
> Sloan in public but I tried to avoid him as much as I could. I am not
> surprised about the inappropriate sexual conducts that he claimed in
> the past. He believes that it is OK." - Susan Polgar, from her weblog.
It most definitely is NOT okay.
Sam, you need your eyesight checked. Get rid of those chess goggles.
Where was Susan's fine judgment on her wedding day?
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
"appointment of counsel was unwarranted given Parker's abilities as a writer
and presenter of arguments"
From Page 6 of the ruling in Parker v. University of Pennsylvania, #04-3688,
Third Circuit Court Of Appeals.
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
Chess One wrote:
> Why cowardly face wants to know anything at all is unexplained.
>
> "Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro" <Spam...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message
> news:1155382737.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > "...I work with Susan Polgar..." - Phil Innes, April 3, 2005
> >
> > "...during his stay, he [Sam Sloan] made a number of completely
> > inappropriate solicitation to me, a minor at that time, and he was
> > promptly and firmly told no. To his credit, he did not try it again.
> > But he tried with others. Since that time, I tried to be polite to Mr.
> > Sloan in public but I tried to avoid him as much as I could. I am not
> > surprised about the inappropriate sexual conducts that he claimed in
> > the past. He believes that it is OK." - Susan Polgar, from her weblog.
> >
> > How does Mr. Innes manage to work with GM Polgar while supporting the
> > election of a man who tried to molest her? And does Mr. Parr have
> > anything to say about Mr. Sloan's actions?
>
> interpersonal abuse in the above text, and only an idiot on the scale of a
> since he is devoted to speculating and promoting the maximum amount of
"...during his stay, he [Sam Sloan] made a number of completely
inappropriate solicitation to me, a minor at that time..."
Ms. Polgar's statement describes "interpersonal abuse", unless you feel
trying to 'pick up' your host's minor daughter is OK. Perhaps you do;
how many houseguests did you have while your daughter was growing up?
Incidentally I have a newfound respect for GM Polgar for coming forward
with her story. How do you feel about it? I notice you dodged the
question previously.
> As with another writer here who speculated non-stop on filth by obsessing on
> it for [how many?] 200 days straight, I was far more worried about such
> repressives acting out their fantasies than in Sloan for stimulating them.
>
> For sure, those who only commit themselves to this base level of inquiry
> have much more in the closet that Sloan has out of it.
Typical dung beetle response. Snipped rest of Innes' nonsense.
jame...@aol.com
I have been ill the last few days, so I haven't been in the ngs,
especially since I have an article to translate into German by next
week, a particularly difficult one of Grandmaster Janevski's on
paradoxes in the #2..
At first I was very taken by what I read and your invitation - even
though I never asked for one. It seemed sincere and genuine at first.
When I read this:
Since I seem to have accepted Dread Dowd's challenge not for a few
games but
a week of games, he himself backed off, and has never made any contact
-
which is much as I thought it would be. What you read here is just
noise
Randy, people who say much about themselves, and belittle others. These
are
hardly people to voluntarily associate with, no? Or has government
service
rendered you completely insensible to conducting conversation with
other
adults?
You still seem unable to understand that I never asked to play chess
against you, that was Larry Tapper.
It showed me what a total jackass you were still, despite your faux
offer of hospitality. It makes me very glad I didn't read the groups
for a few days to allow your true colors to show. Here you are,
"dissing" not just me but someone else in the same paragraph. The way
you lump people into categories it is no wonder you are such a bigot.
Chess One
Well - to be on topic, would I have you to visit here? While you write your
e-mail nonsense to me, you do not provide an adequate address for a
response, and rather than any civility whatsoever, you ask no civil
questions, make absurd National Enquirer assumptions, and behave as if you
actually prefer a cartoon version of Life to anything real about people.
There was no actual interference in this instance, and while you, Dr. Dowd,
seek to exite this subject, what you wrote to me exited another, in essence
no different than Sloan's - and what you write now is of a determination to
persevere with this naughty subject. You getting off on it?
> Incidentally I have a newfound respect for GM Polgar for coming forward
> with her story. How do you feel about it? I notice you dodged the
> question previously.
What I know is personal information. What is that to you, Sir?
You already proved yourself untrustworthy, scandalising, lewd, and paranoid!
Why do you think you have any business asking me questions? You are merely
impertinent.
>> As with another writer here who speculated non-stop on filth by obsessing
>> on
>> it for [how many?] 200 days straight, I was far more worried about such
>> repressives acting out their fantasies than in Sloan for stimulating
>> them.
>>
>> For sure, those who only commit themselves to this base level of inquiry
>> have much more in the closet that Sloan has out of it.
>
> Typical dung beetle response. Snipped rest of Innes' nonsense.
You are a coward in public as well as in private. At least that is
consistent of you.
Phil Innes
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
Hmm, sane people know to look for a button marked "reply."
, and rather than any civility whatsoever, you ask no civil
> questions, make absurd National Enquirer assumptions, and behave as if you
> actually prefer a cartoon version of Life to anything real about people.
>
> There was no actual interference in this instance, and while you, Dr. Dowd,
Yah, who ist das Dr. Dowd? This is yet another instance of your
paranoid thinking. I suppose you think EVERY poster on rgcp is Dr.
Dowd. Or Larry Tapper.
jame...@aol.com
Chess One wrote:
>
> There was no actual interference in this instance, and while you, Dr. Dowd,
> seek to exite this subject, what you wrote to me exited another, in essence
> no different than Sloan's - and what you write now is of a determination to
> persevere with this naughty subject. You getting off on it?
Phil - you again do not seem to be able to exercise the simplest use of
logic.
I do not know what it means to "exite" a subject, and if you take a few
seconds to read the the posts from the professor at Brattleboro, you
will recognize that it does not match my writing style at all.
I really don't care what you think, but could you at least lay blame at
the proper feet? I can get myself in enough trouble without having a
numbskull like you to help me.
I am the one who A). never made any comments on the Gulko manuscript;
B.) did not have any interest in visiting you to play chess (that was
Mr. Tapper); and C). Those Brattleboro posts are not mine. It is rather
easy to tell if you have any skill in reading and writing in English,
that those posts do not belong to me. And please don't try this "all
anons the same to me" - that might have struck a chord once or twice
amongst you and Parr, but one poster, at least, is just tired of you. I
suspect many others are as well.
Please just stop stalking me. I am tired of your nonsense. Now back to
translating "Eastern European English" into German....a deadline
awaits...
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155415357....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>>
>> There was no actual interference in this instance, and while you, Dr.
>> Dowd,
>> seek to exite this subject, what you wrote to me exited another, in
>> essence
>> no different than Sloan's - and what you write now is of a determination
>> to
>> persevere with this naughty subject. You getting off on it?
>
>
> Phil - you again do not seem to be able to exercise the simplest use of
> logic.
Just go away Larry, and stop your posing. If you provided any means of
communciation to yourself you would have been brave enough to read responses
to your shit - but you are not - so don't pretend here in public.
> I do not know what it means to "exite" a subject,
Neither do I care about if you care. But why not protest it to everyone.
Hey!!! I don't care!!@@!
> and if you take a few
> seconds to read the the posts from the professor at Brattleboro, you
> will recognize that it does not match my writing style at all.
I never said it did! WEhy don't you take a few minutes to stop being
paranoid? Scared?
> I really don't care what you think,
but :)
> but could you at least lay blame at
> the proper feet? I can get myself in enough trouble without having a
> numbskull like you to help me.
I offered you a holiday in Vermont. If you didn't want to accept you could
have said so directly. But you are determined to take offense, so go ahead!
> I am the one who A). never made any comments on the Gulko manuscript;
> B.) did not have any interest in visiting you to play chess (that was
> Mr. Tapper); and C). Those Brattleboro posts are not mine. It is rather
> easy to tell if you have any skill in reading and writing in English,
> that those posts do not belong to me. And please don't try this "all
> anons the same to me" - that might have struck a chord once or twice
> amongst you and Parr, but one poster, at least, is just tired of you. I
> suspect many others are as well.
Yes - I wonder why I wrote to you at all, except that you possess all the
swing moods of a manic depressive?
> Please just stop stalking me. I am tired of your nonsense.
You coward! You write me e-mails full of paranoia from an address which
cannot receive a response. Then you say I stalk you?
>Now back to
> translating "Eastern European English" into German....a deadline
> awaits...
How important thou art!
What a pathetic excuse for a human being! No wonder you have such imposteurs
and imposters.
Phil Innes
jame...@aol.com
Chess One wrote:
> >Now back to
> > translating "Eastern European English" into German....a deadline
> > awaits...
>
> How important thou art!
>
> What a pathetic excuse for a human being! No wonder you have such imposteurs
> and imposters.
It makes me no more important than anyone else writing and translating
chess articles. But it does seem to make you very defensive. All I said
was that I had a job to do for GM Janevski. I am sure your name is
also on the masthead of chess magazines as an editor reflecting your
fine work in chess, so why hate me for the same?
Why does everything someone mentions that reflects any achievement of
theirs in chess cause you to rattle defensively, and denigrate them?
Do you simply *HAVE* to be seen as the expert? Your inferiority complex
is indeed not becoming to you.
Now please Phil, I don't care about you and your narrow little world.
Please leave me out of it. It is too bewildering a place for anyone who
hopes to maintain sanity.
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
Chess One wrote:
>
> > Please just stop stalking me. I am tired of your nonsense.
>
> You coward! You write me e-mails full of paranoia from an address which
> cannot receive a response. Then you say I stalk you?
Yes, you are stalking me. Please stop.
jame...@aol.com
Chess One wrote:
> You coward! You write me e-mails full of paranoia from an address which
> cannot receive a response. Then you say I stalk you?
I just saw this and was floored.....
I think you are confused. I have emailed you in the past months ago
from the address I have always used for emails. That was a short
correspondence or two. It may be 6 months to a year ago.
Perhaps you mean I write "posts" from an address which cannot receive a
response?
This is because I do not care to receive emails from you. As a female
reporter said on the Daily Show the other night, It is like dating. If
I tell you I don't want to date you and you insist on picking me up
Tuesday at 7:30, it is no longer dating. It is stalking.
RGCP is a public place. It does not belong to you. I can post here as I
please without it being any form of stalking. As may you - a freedom
you exercise with the force of a bully.
However, your repeated attempts to contact me privately when I do not
want you to and have chosen an address that cannot receive a response
for that very reason (not a public address), that means I wish no
private contact with you, and continued efforts to do so are stalking.
You probably need to think this through a long time so you can
understand this. You are free to call me whatever names you wish,
belittle my work as inferior to your own (why I don't know), and
continue your bullying.
The why is a bit troublesome for me, but that's your own private mania
to deal with. I prefer to be left out of it.
I would sign my name, but I will just let you sign it for me as you
please since you can't figure out who anyone is anymore.... I do
believe that malady has a name as well....
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155439550.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> You coward! You write me e-mails full of paranoia from an address which
>> cannot receive a response. Then you say I stalk you?
>
>
> I just saw this and was floored.....
>
> I think you are confused. I have emailed you in the past months ago
> from the address I have always used for emails.
6 months? Nothing like kicking off a post with a big whopper! Latest:
Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM
copied two witnesses, one a friend of mine, and one a friend of yours.
> That was a short
> correspondence or two. It may be 6 months to a year ago.
>
> Perhaps you mean I write "posts" from an address which cannot receive a
> response?
I meant the e-mail you sent me yesterday! Since you protest so much, I took
a certain precaution, since your letter came over all paranoid. I even used
a witness who does not like me in the least. That is how confident I am of
my 'bullying and stalking' attempts. <lol>
> This is because I do not care to receive emails from you. As a female
> reporter said on the Daily Show the other night, It is like dating. If
> I tell you I don't want to date you and you insist on picking me up
> Tuesday at 7:30, it is no longer dating. It is stalking.
You are the person who sends me e-mails which do not allow a response, and
you say I stalk you! ROFL!! What a wonderful performance for the folks here!
Would you like to make more personal comments, strike some more attitudes,
or compare this affair to an analogy of a tv reporter's analogy?
> RGCP is a public place. It does not belong to you. I can post here as I
> please without it being any form of stalking. As may you - a freedom
> you exercise with the force of a bully.
>
> However, your repeated attempts to contact me privately when I do not
> want you to and have chosen an address that cannot receive a response
> for that very reason (not a public address), that means I wish no
> private contact with you, and continued efforts to do so are stalking.
Try and apply some logic to your excuse - it would be more believable. How
could you know of any repeated attempts if you can't receive the messages?
While you may say you wish no private contact with me, and I can't write to
you only you to me, then your actions show your words to be complete
nonsense - and public posturing, absurd even on its face.
> You probably need to think this through a long time so you can
> understand this.
Right.
> You are free to call me whatever names you wish,
Well, who are you today? What name do you call yourself?
> belittle my work as inferior to your own (why I don't know),
What?! I am so glad that I used a couple of witnesses in my response who
could attest to my modest, in fact, hilarious Swabischen ... Otherwise I
mentioned that I also have some book work to do - and I didn't consider it
superior, but just as mandatory that I attend to it.
> and
> continue your bullying.
>
> The why is a bit troublesome for me, but that's your own private mania
> to deal with. I prefer to be left out of it.
Sure, so long!
> I would sign my name, but I will just let you sign it for me as you
> please since you can't figure out who anyone is anymore.... I do
> believe that malady has a name as well....
I doubt you can sign your name, now or at any other time, not even in an
e-mail, though I let that pass since pointing out these things is
'bullying'.
I had only wished you to have a real conversation, instead of National
Enquirer blinder Eifer schadet nur ;)
Phil Innes
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
Chess One wrote:
> <jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1155439550.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >
> >> You coward! You write me e-mails full of paranoia from an address which
> >> cannot receive a response. Then you say I stalk you?
> >
> >
> > I just saw this and was floored.....
> >
> > I think you are confused. I have emailed you in the past months ago
> > from the address I have always used for emails.
>
> 6 months? Nothing like kicking off a post with a big whopper! Latest:
> Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM
>
> copied two witnesses, one a friend of mine, and one a friend of yours.
Would you please post this message, including all headers? That will
prove your case.
jame...@aol.com
Chess One wrote:
> 6 months? Nothing like kicking off a post with a big whopper! Latest:
> Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM
Please post a copy if you wish, as this never happened. Header and
other information would be required for verification.
First you don't know who is posting and now you don't even know who is
emailing you?
You've lost it, pure and simple.
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155504563.3...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> 6 months? Nothing like kicking off a post with a big whopper! Latest:
>> Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM
>
> Please post a copy if you wish, as this never happened. Header and
> other information would be required for verification.
I'll let our witnesses decide - fair?
> First you don't know who is posting and now you don't even know who is
> emailing you?
You assert an imposter used the exact e-mail address you currently use, and
your message contained a note about current illness, and so on?
> You've lost it, pure and simple.
Or we both have! But I don't think so, Steven. Its okay - I'll even allow
you to win this in public, since you need the shade more than anything I
could need.
Phil Innes
jame...@aol.com
Chess One wrote:
> >> You coward! You write me e-mails full of paranoia from an address which
> >> cannot receive a response. Then you say I stalk you?
> Try and apply some logic to your excuse - it would be more believable. How
> could you know of any repeated attempts if you can't receive the messages?
Because you continually claim that I wrote you emails (you do
understand what a plural is, correct?) to which you respond, as above.
And in your same second sentence above, *you* state that I cannot
receive the response. Then you claim I have. Which is it?
You are simply a pitiful liar in addition to being a pitiful person. Or
befuddled to no end....
Or prove what you say. Or we could take the Larry Parr $5,000 bet -
I'll be glad to put up 5 grand and answer the question as to whether I
emailed you on the date you claim, or anywhere close to that. Winner
walks away with the other's money. We can then use his favorite device,
the Pauliegraf. :) Your travel expense to the independent lab closest
to me.
Then the hypocrite will be checkmated (Lasker)
jame...@aol.com
Chess One wrote:
> I'll let our witnesses decide - fair?
No. You can't choose who(m?) you wish to decide a "case." That is
ludicrous. I've not seen the post myself you claim I sent. I do not
know who your witnesses (more likely witlesses) are.
> You assert an imposter used the exact e-mail address you currently use, and
> your message contained a note about current illness, and so on?
What is the email address that I currently use, Phil? It is the same
one I have used for over ten years. And it isn't rynd - that is a faux
address I used, as noted, to avoid getting emails from jerks like you.
It has been wonderful.
And yes, I make that assertion. As I noted later, I am willing to give
up 5 grand if you are correct. The only proof will be the assessment of
my word. If you are willing to stake your reputation, I am willing to
stake mine.
So come with it so we can settle this.
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> <jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1155504563.3...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >
> >> 6 months? Nothing like kicking off a post with a big whopper! Latest:
> >> Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM
> >
> > Please post a copy if you wish, as this never happened. Header and
> > other information would be required for verification.
>
> I'll let our witnesses decide - fair?
Who are these witnesses, and what are they supposed to decide?
jame...@aol.com
Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> Who are these witnesses, and what are they supposed to decide?
My only assumption is that he has the idea that an accuser is allowed
to choose his own "jury" to decide a point. Perhaps this is a
foundation in English law - guilty until proven innocent, and so on.
But instead of trying to argue with him, or reason with him that
perhaps he has Google (or his reader) set to send him emails in
follow-up posts.... or any reasonable explanation....
It will be much sweeter to take 5 grand away from the windbag.
Chess One
Thank you for sending me yet another e-mail [actually 2 of them] with a
receivable address this time; while requesting that I do not respond to it
nor advertise it, since you would not welcome any response.
I hope that any question of my stalking you will now be put aside, since I
only wrote you some 6 months ago in response to your own messages to me.
I have not e-mailed you recently at all - though I tried with one message
which was subsequently posted here.
Therefore I am a stalker, etc., as you would prefer it to appear in public,
and I merely use the term differently than yourself and Taylor Kingston.
You seem to have denied earlier today that you sent me any messages at all =
but let's let that pass, because, as ani ful no, since Taylor Kingston is an
honorable man and would never lie about anything, even he had proof of it,
even something this trivial, and even despite his evident petty spite below
which he can't resist stating at a safe distance, and even though he talks
of windbags.
Phil Innes
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155508906.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> You seem to have denied earlier today that you sent me any messages at all =
> but let's let that pass, because, as ani ful no, since Taylor Kingston is an
> honorable man and would never lie about anything, even he had proof of it,
Phil, I have no idea what you are talking about. I certainly know
nothing about any messages Rynd may have sent to you. I received no
copy from him on any such, and none from you on any reply you may have
made. I have no idea why you are bringing my name into this matter, let
alone what "proof" you refer to.
> even something this trivial, and even despite his evident petty spite below
> which he can't resist stating at a safe distance, and even though he talks
> of windbags.
What you quote below about "windbags" was not written by me. I wrote
only one sentence, comprising two very direct questions: "Who are these
witnesses, and what are they supposed to decide?". You have not
answered.
jame...@aol.com
Chess One wrote:
>
> You seem to have denied earlier today that you sent me any messages at all =
> but let's let that pass, because, as ani ful no, since Taylor Kingston is an
> honorable man and would never lie about anything, even he had proof of it,
> even something this trivial, and even despite his evident petty spite below
> which he can't resist stating at a safe distance, and even though he talks
> of windbags.
Let's not let it pass. The only messages I did send were today from my
actual email address (as well as those I mentioned from months ago -
which you truncated to a few hours): I used that so you could send me a
copy of the email I had supposedly sent you - so far nothing. I did
indicate that I would prefer you not use it for anything else.
You had accused me of sending you emails often, including one on the
12th. That was what I denied - having contacted you only from the email
address I always use and have used. You refused to post it, indicating
witnesses of your choosing had it under review.
It would seem prudent that you admit that no such email was sent to
you, and that you also sent nothing to any so-called "witnesses." You
indicated one was a friend of mine; a friend of mine would have
contacted me about it by now. Or you need to identify who this friend
of mine is that you sent it to. I was quite unaware that you were
familiar with my social and professional friends; the fact that you
claim to be strikes me as a bit creepy - I'll avoid the "s" word since
it seems to inflame you so.
If you are unwilling to do this, I will accept no less than a full
public apology from you for your disingenuous attempt to smear me and
then continuing to lie about it, although that's about the same thing,
isn't it? This is nothing to make light of Phil - you can call me
anything you want, but lying about me is not going to be tolerated.
parrt...@cs.com
<Or we could take the Larry Parr $5,000 bet -
I'll be glad to put up 5 grand and answer the
question as to whether I emailed you on the
date you claim, or anywhere close to that. Winner
walks away with the other's money. We can then
use his favorite device, the Pauliegraf. :)> -- Rynd-Dowd to Innes
The "Larry Parr bet" is $10,000.
When the Rynd-Dowd dander starts flaking, it
looks like intellectual dandruff.
I still say that Rynd-Dowd would benefit from a
visit to the Vermont countryside. Several observers
have feared for the man or men, and we fear for his or
their person or persons, though never for his or their
persona or personae.
We have begun a new week on this forum and
unlike the poltroons in Lebanon and Israel who conclude
ceasefires, we will continue blasting away.
TO PHIL INNES
Dear Phil,
You are probably right that Rynd-Dowd has or
have the stuff from which a stalker or stalkers is or
are made.
The man forged my name at an academic site -- an
act that he later admitted was not one of his stellar
moments -- just as, presumably, NMnot Taylor Kingston
would rather not have claimed that he was 2300+ Elo
if he had to do it all over again.
The give-and-take on rgcp is sport for us,
though there are illuminating moments also. But for
some of these guys, the cuts don't heal. They fester
and infect. Eventually, they become like Greg
Kennedy, who is locked in here as help bog. The poor
man will never escape until he lets help bog disappear.
Speaking of which, NMnot Kingston has been all quiet
on the Xylothist and Paulie Graf fronts. However, Niemand
still remains.
parrt...@cs.com
THIS IS CALLED STALKING?
We have a new definition of stalking from Mr. or
the Messrs. Rynd-Dowd.
Phil Innes invites Rynd-Dowd to visit for a
holiday in Vermont (requiring that Rynd-Down
travel from his or their residence to the Innes
demesne) and this is called stalking.
I even offered to defray a bit of the travel
expenditures in case Rynd-Dowd's recent mood swings
were caused by financial distress. As a libertarian I
would never support any initiation of force to prompt
Rynd-Dowd to make the trip, and his journey should be
freely chosen or declined.
So there you have it: waffles and maple syrup
at the Innes household; treks through the rolling
hills of New England; evenings on the streets of Ye
Olde Villages -- and this is called stalking.
Okay, then, I can imagine that if Mr. Innes had
offered to drop in at the Rynd-Dowd digs, wherever
they may be, and bundle up the trembling lad, thence
to take him up to Vermont -- and even were the offer
made with no malign intent -- then that might be
construed by paranoid minds as stalking.
But no such offer or threat was ever made.
Instead, Rynd-Dowd was or were to get on a bus
to Brattleboro, if he desired the proffered hospitality.
He evidently does not.
So be it.
Perhaps the crisis in Rynd-Dowd's affairs has
abated for the moment, or perhaps the crisis, given
the man's or men's evident perturbation(s), renders
travel difficult.
In any event, I think Phil Innes is to be
congratulated for extending hospitality that could
be freely declined.
jame...@aol.com
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> THIS IS CALLED STALKING?
Larry-
Put your muckraking nose back where it belongs. Your current obsession
with me is well, can I just use "creepy" again? Don't you have to save
the world from the FIDEnistas or something? The fact that I seem to be
on your little list of projects is a bit unnerving, considering how you
screwed up Chess Life..... Perhaps you have better things to do than
worry about me? Isn't Dr. Press answering your emails anymore? Does
Sloan snub you now that he "made it"?
Seriously, though, please, consider another topic for discussion. The
GM Evans development is much more interesting, or?
parrt...@cs.com
"Anyway, I plan on ignoring Innes from now on,
since, perhaps even more than Sam Sloan, he
is such a>whore for attention that he will post
anything to get a response. I've proved him idiot
and liar often enough; no need to prove it again
and again." -- Neil Brennen, August 6, 2006
That's just it. "Promises. Promises." A vast
storehouse, a gigantic promiscuity, of promises.
Neil Brennen is forever promising to ignore
people, and he never does.
The people themselves appear agnostic on the
subject. They neither ask Neil to ignore them, nor do
they forbid it. They simply reader Neil's promises to
ignore them, and they know that the promises will not
be kept. They are resigned.
The Historian can't keep his promises. I don't
accuse him of lying. I think he makes his promises in
general good spirit; I think he intends his promises;
I think he works hard to carry through on them.
But never, never, never does Neil keep them.
My heavens! Neil used to killfile me because, as
he once put the matter, my messages upset his morning
diet with coffee, toast, eggs and rashers of bacon.
But then he unkillfiled me, killfiled me, unkillfiled
me, and so on.
Oh lordy, Neil promises with the abandon of a
15th century Catholic priest hawking indulgences.
My attitude has always been one of strict
neutrality: let him make promises and let him violate
them without my expressing an opinion about the
promises and their later violations. I continue this policy.
Is it the correct course of action? Or ought we
to strike a more positive posture in the affairs of
our fellow men? Is it time for this writer and others
to become Neil's figurative brothers?
In short, has the moment come to help Neil prop
up his promises?
'Tis a puzzlement.
g4
> That's just it. "Promises. Promises." A vast
> storehouse, a gigantic promiscuity, of promises.
>
> Neil Brennen is forever promising to ignore
> people, and he never does.
>
Neil is akin to the alcoholic who promises no more drinks, only to evenually
succumb to temptation. I believe he truly means to ignore Phil / Philth / Philsy
but the attraction to respond is just too great.
Perhaps Neil should found a Phil Innes Anonmyous, for those who cannot
resist answering Innes' nonsense and stupidity. A typical meeting can start off
with a declaration to ignore and killfile for good that certain unnamed person.
Afterwards, members take turns standing and telling their story ... like ..
"My name is James Rynd, and I cannot resist responding with the same
messages ad nauseum when that man responds to me. I know it's wrong for
an intelligent person such as myself to do battle with a mental midget, but the stimulation ... the
attraction ... oh gawd, I NEED help." At that point, as he
breaks down, the fellow next to him (Taylor Kinston?) puts his arm around
his shoulders and reassures by saying, "That's ok. You did the right thing coming
here. We will tackle this problem one message at a time."
> My heavens! Neil used to killfile me because, as
> he once put the matter, my messages upset his morning
> diet with coffee, toast, eggs and rashers of bacon.
> But then he unkillfiled me, killfiled me, unkillfiled
> me, and so on.
>
How often one killfiles and un-killfiles you is his right. No explanation needed.
> My attitude has always been one of strict
> neutrality: let him make promises and let him violate
> them without my expressing an opinion about the
> promises and their later violations. I continue this policy.
>
You just did express an opinion, moron.
On the other hand, you have been silent about jr claiming on more than one
occasion that she killfiled Louis Blair, only to be caught responding to dim.
parrt...@cs.com
>Larry- Put your muckraking nose back where it belongs. Your
current obsession with me is well, can I just use "creepy" again?
Don't you have to save the world from the FIDEnistas or something?
The fact that I seem to be on your little list of projects is a bit
unnerving,
considering how you screwed up Chess Life.....Perhaps you have better
things to do than worry about me?> -- Rynd-Dowd
There's an old adage that no good deed goes unpunished.
Yours truly offers to pay half of Rynd-Dowd's travel expenses
for a Brattleboro rest cure, and the man or men become as sullen
and surly as Poe's bells.
Ding-a-ling, ding-dong. Indeed, ring, rang,
rung becomes wring, wrang, wrung. Given the reference
to Chess Life, he or they appear afeared that I will
edit his or their soul(s).
Earlier, Rynd-Dowd accused Phil Innes of
stalking him when the latter merely invited Rynd-Dowd
for a visit. Mr. Innes was not driving to the
Rynd-Dowd place of residence; Rynd-Dowd would have
been journeying, more than likely by bus, to the Innes
hearth. The direction of travel shows that Mr. Innes
is the furthest thing from a stalker.
And now, Rynd-Dowd accuse or accuses this writer
of an obsession with their or his person(s) after
they/he earlier forged the name of yours truly at an
academic site.
Rynd-Dowd pop or pops off at the merest
kindness. We have tried to be nice to the men or man
ever since evident problems appeared in their/his
messages, and this is what we get in response.
What to make of it all? They or he may be
preparing to leave us again. The message appears to
suggest that if the rest of us desist in commenting,
they or he will depart.
These types eventually wind down into what might
be called a neurasthenic concussion.
parrt...@cs.com
>Larry- Put your muckraking nose back where it belongs. Your
current obsession with me is well, can I just use "creepy" again?
Don't you have to save the world from the FIDEnistas or something?
The fact that I seem to be on your little list of projects is a bit
unnerving,
jame...@aol.com
g4 wrote:
> "My name is James Rynd, and I cannot resist responding with the same
> messages ad nauseum when that man responds to me. I know it's wrong for
> an intelligent person such as myself to do battle with a mental midget, but the stimulation ... the
> attraction ... oh gawd, I NEED help." At that point, as he
> breaks down, the fellow next to him (Taylor Kinston?) puts his arm around
> his shoulders and reassures by saying, "That's ok. You did the right thing coming
> here. We will tackle this problem one message at a time."
Well done, g4. I must admit I was offended for a second but then just
took the opportunity to have a laugh at my own expense. I guess part of
it was because my anger from the whole thing was released last night in
a nice looking #4 thats coming closer to finished - nothing like
directing negative energy in a positive way...
I'm also really impressed since "ad nauseum" is a phrase I use myself -
sometimes to excess!
Please have fun at my expense as you please! :)
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> Dear Dr. D.
> Therefore I am a stalker, etc., as you would prefer it to appear in public,
> and I merely use the term differently than yourself and Taylor Kingston.
Indeed, you do use it differently, Phil, especially since a quick
Google search shows that I have never used the term in any post.
> You seem to have denied earlier today that you sent me any messages at all =
> but let's let that pass, because, as ani ful no, since Taylor Kingston is an
> honorable man and would never lie about anything, even he had proof of it,
I ask again: what "proof" is it that I supposedly have? I'm sincerely
curious about this.
> even something this trivial, and even despite his evident petty spite below
> which he can't resist stating at a safe distance, and even though he talks
> of windbags.
In the quote below, I say nothing about spite or windbags. I simply
asked: "Who are these witnesses, and what are they supposed to decide?"
Still waiting for you to enlighten me.
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1155557561.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> THAT'S THE THANKS I GET
>
>>Larry- Put your muckraking nose back where it belongs. Your
> current obsession with me is well, can I just use "creepy" again?
> Don't you have to save the world from the FIDEnistas or something?
> The fact that I seem to be on your little list of projects is a bit
> unnerving,
> considering how you screwed up Chess Life.....Perhaps you have better
> things to do than worry about me?> -- Rynd-Dowd
>
> There's an old adage that no good deed goes unpunished.
>
> Yours truly offers to pay half of Rynd-Dowd's travel expenses
> for a Brattleboro rest cure, and the man or men become as sullen
> and surly as Poe's bells.
Dear Larry,
I actually responded to his initiative and accepted his challenge to play a
match, and extended it the whole week. Maybe this makes me a
cowardly-stalker? As for Poe's bells it was a full moon here, same where you
are ? :) <-- v. old joke
> Ding-a-ling, ding-dong. Indeed, ring, rang,
> rung becomes wring, wrang, wrung. Given the reference
> to Chess Life, he or they appear afeared that I will
> edit his or their soul(s).
>
> Earlier, Rynd-Dowd accused Phil Innes of
> stalking him when the latter merely invited Rynd-Dowd
> for a visit.
We have contradictory statements from the Gent himself. He admits first
initiating writing to me 'about 6 months ago', then only yesterday morning
here in public that he did not write to me recently, though his e-mail
arrived in the morning mail [apologising, BTW, for his late response], then
later the same day, re-affirmed his demand [which he previously said here he
never wrote] to play a match.
> Mr. Innes was not driving to the
> Rynd-Dowd place of residence; Rynd-Dowd would have
> been journeying, more than likely by bus, to the Innes
> hearth. The direction of travel shows that Mr. Innes
> is the furthest thing from a stalker.
>
> And now, Rynd-Dowd accuse or accuses this writer
> of an obsession with their or his person(s)
I should doubt that you could be more obsessed about him than he is of
himself - he took my anecdotes of current chess projects as a slight and
distraction against the magnificence of his own work - and seemed to take
massive offense on that basis. Personally I have no objection to his
translating some German to English and working here on it - though I think
this is a lesser work than T. E. Lawrence translated from the Greek, even
tso...!
> after
> they/he earlier forged the name of yours truly at an
> academic site.
He sort of admits it and denies it at the same time, rather like the chess
challenge. He did write in your name, but because he was demonstrating to
you -as I understand hs explanation- that anyone could write in anyone's
name, thereby denied that it was a forgery, as such. I would suppose, and to
be generous, or at least fair to his intent - that in his own lights he
believes what he says about this not being a forgery - but what such a ME ME
character neglects to note is a valid objection that could be made: the fact
that other people will not be aware of the substitution/deception. I am not
sure his interests stray that far so as to notice other people's
magnificance; nor even to their ordinary mundane plain common and basically
civil rights reaction to others goofing around with their names, and in
making subsequent and private admission of it, this would hardly address
those who read the material at the time.
> Rynd-Dowd pop or pops off at the merest
> kindness. We have tried to be nice to the men or man
> ever since evident problems appeared in their/his
> messages, and this is what we get in response.
>
> What to make of it all? They or he may be
> preparing to leave us again. The message appears to
> suggest that if the rest of us desist in commenting,
> they or he will depart.
Whoops!
Anyway, I'll just play the other bloke.
> These types eventually wind down into what might
> be called a neurasthenic concussion.
The term-de-jour in shrinkville is Bi-Polar-Bears. First you are hot, then
Global Warming sets in, and you get hotter and wetter, and the damned little
fishies get scarcer and scarcer. Then when all the ice is gone you and New
Yok city die beneath the waves. That's the thanks we get for excessive SUV
use, combined with a global policy shared only by one other nation on Earth,
to totally ignore the effects of what we do, as though because we can do it
and get away with it by might, we do.
There are some countries - well, every country but one, who consider this
not to be responsible action on the Planet, and does not set the right tone
about the country's care for where everyone has to live.
The obscure moral of this episode, in miniature with Dr D and my offer to
essentially spend a week for free in one of the less paved-over parts of
America pretty much as he would like, and in the meta~ cultural aspect of
who we behave, in corporare, is to discover about those people who wrote
into this thread and the Visit one, which of them have no pluribus, and no
unum either. They rather respond to that other little ditty on the
bank-note, as if that was the national motto!
The one that just has to do with money. As a cultural phenomenum in this
country, there you have your 30 pieces of Silver.
Phil Innes
Larry Tapper
g4 wrote:
> <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1155539841.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > That's just it. "Promises. Promises." A vast
> > storehouse, a gigantic promiscuity, of promises.
> >
> > Neil Brennen is forever promising to ignore
> > people, and he never does.
> >
>
> Neil is akin to the alcoholic who promises no more drinks, only to evenually
> succumb to temptation. I believe he truly means to ignore Phil / Philth / Philsy
> but the attraction to respond is just too great.
>
> resist answering Innes' nonsense and stupidity. A typical meeting can start off
> with a declaration to ignore and killfile for good that certain unnamed person.
> Afterwards, members take turns standing and telling their story ... like ..
> "My name is James Rynd, and I cannot resist responding with the same
> messages ad nauseum when that man responds to me. I know it's wrong for
> an intelligent person such as myself to do battle with a mental midget, but the stimulation ... the
> attraction ... oh gawd, I NEED help." At that point, as he
> his shoulders and reassures by saying, "That's ok. You did the right thing coming
> here. We will tackle this problem one message at a time."
>
An insightful post, g4.
Larry T.
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1155515982.5...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> You seem to have denied earlier today that you sent me any messages at
>> all =
>> but let's let that pass, because, as ani ful no, since Taylor Kingston is
>> an
>> honorable man and would never lie about anything, even he had proof of
>> it,
>
> Phil, I have no idea what you are talking about.
All your e-mail address are dead. My ears are closed, I hear nothing.
> I certainly know
> nothing about any messages Rynd may have sent to you. I received no
> copy from him on any such, and none from you on any reply you may have
> made. I have no idea why you are bringing my name into this matter, let
> alone what "proof" you refer to.
Hm. Okay Taylor, but don't overprotest it, it will seem suspicious ;)
>> even something this trivial, and even despite his evident petty spite
>> below
>> which he can't resist stating at a safe distance, and even though he
>> talks
>> of windbags.
>
> What you quote below about "windbags" was not written by me. I wrote
> only one sentence, comprising two very direct questions: "Who are these
> witnesses, and what are they supposed to decide?". You have not
> answered.
The windbag comment below seems to me to have exactly the same number of
little indents as your name. But maybe Dowd wrote it? - in which case you
are excused as usual.
But - if you push your innocence too far, then you seem too anxious, no?
But since I am currently 'stalking' Dr Dowd, by virtue of not replying to
his DOZENS of messages about me ever day, in a correspondance I did not
originate, and in fact which he has not received an e-mail from me for 6
months, and neither do I intend to go wherever the hell he is, let you not
be concerned for your own reputation, since indeed, I copied /two/ people my
response.
Of course, the fairies could have dissapeared it, like your 'campaign'
letters from 2002.
You are capabable of stating that the only reason you would have gone to Ct
was to bend the new Ex Dir's ear on Evans. Then as if to disprove your any
malice about Evans, to then say that you didn't go.
If only you hadn't sent those other 20 e-mails as well. The rest of your
associations with Chesscafe and book-things are utterly concidental to all
these factors. It is, as Vinny Hart says, 'no big deal.'
Phil Innes
jame...@aol.com
Chess One wrote:
> Dear Larry,
>
> I actually responded to his initiative and accepted his challenge to play a
> match, and extended it the whole week.
Not again. Just, please, not again.
Larry Tapper wanted to play chess with you; I made a specific statement
long before your "invitation" that I did not, repeat, that is a
negative, not, want to play chess with you.
I am the one who demanded an apology for posting lies.
You're right, g4. Get me off this Narrenschiff!
jame...@aol.com
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> And now, Rynd-Dowd accuse or accuses this writer
> of an obsession with their or his person(s) after
> they/he earlier forged the name of yours truly at an
> academic site.
I suppose asking for proof of same would be too much? Would it be like
asking Phil for the witnesses supposedly involved in his email ghost
story, or even the email itself? Would be like asking Phil, seemingly a
thousand times, for the emails that supposedly are so incriminating to
Taylor Kingston? Would it be like asking you to tell the truth?
Ack - I'm doing it again - demanding rational responses. When will I
learn?
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1155515982.5...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >> You seem to have denied earlier today that you sent me any messages at
> >> all =
> >> but let's let that pass, because, as ani ful no, since Taylor Kingston is
> >> an
> >> honorable man and would never lie about anything, even he had proof of
> >> it,
> >
> > Phil, I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> All your e-mail address are dead. My ears are closed, I hear nothing.
On the contrary, my e-mail is working just fine. I have sent you a
private message inviting you to show me this "proof" you seem to think
I have somehow already seen.
> > I certainly know
> > nothing about any messages Rynd may have sent to you. I received no
> > copy from him on any such, and none from you on any reply you may have
> > made. I have no idea why you are bringing my name into this matter, let
> > alone what "proof" you refer to.
>
> Hm. Okay Taylor, but don't overprotest it, it will seem suspicious ;)
No protest, Phil, simply curiosity. All you you need do is produce
these e-mails you have supposedly received and shown to witnesses, one
of which, it seems, I am, according to you.
> >> even something this trivial, and even despite his evident petty spite
> >> below
> >> which he can't resist stating at a safe distance, and even though he
> >> talks
> >> of windbags.
> >
> > What you quote below about "windbags" was not written by me. I wrote
> > only one sentence, comprising two very direct questions: "Who are these
> > witnesses, and what are they supposed to decide?". You have not
> > answered.
>
> The windbag comment below seems to me to have exactly the same number of
> little indents as your name. But maybe Dowd wrote it? - in which case you
> are excused as usual.
Is that how you identify posters? By the number of indents?? I would
suggest that instead you look at the header, where it clearly says
"<jame...@aol.com> wrote." Furthermore, the number of indents on my
one line is actually not the same as on Rynd's lines.
> But - if you push your innocence too far, then you seem too anxious, no?
If you make absurd claims about things that never happened, you look
absolutely ridiculous, don't you Phil?
> But since I am currently 'stalking' Dr Dowd, by virtue of not replying to
> his DOZENS of messages about me ever day, in a correspondance I did not
> originate, and in fact which he has not received an e-mail from me for 6
> months, and neither do I intend to go wherever the hell he is, let you not
> be concerned for your own reputation, since indeed, I copied /two/ people my
> response.
Whom did you copy? If they have something relevant, let them produce
it, and you may come out smelling like a rose.
jame...@aol.com
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> THAT'S THE THANKS I GET
> These types eventually wind down into what might
> be called a neurasthenic concussion.
Beginning of Television advertisement:
" Hi, I'm Larry Parr. I'm not a doctor, but I play one on chess
newsgroups. I'm here to tell you about the new wonder drug, Neuralyte.
Not only does it prevent the dreaded neurasthenic concussion (also
called Parrinnes syndrome), said to affect anyone forced to deal with
me, but it also makes you immune from lie detector tests, or even
telling the truth at all. In a double blind university study, Neuralyte
was shown to be at least as effective as sticking your tongue in a
light socket."
"Even better, Neuralyte won't be picked up on FIDE drug testing and
will give you the ability to salivate over the grandmaster column of
your choosing. Side effects include: Nausea, vomiting, and an impulse
to leave the United States and live in a third world shithole. Brain
atrophy lasting longer than 4 hours should be reported to your
physician."
"Neuralyte will never be available over the counter, so we are offering
this only through our 800 number......"
Louis Blair
7 ... Yours truly offers to pay half of Rynd-Dowd's travel
7 expenses for a Brattleboro rest cure, and the man or
7 men become as sullen and surly as Poe's bells. ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:08:42 GMT):
7 ... I actually responded to his initiative and accepted
7 his challenge to play a match, and extended it the
7 whole week. ...
_
"I would like to propose a grudge match between
me and Phil Innes." - Larry Tapper (20 Apr 2006
06:32:59 -0700)
_
"... I sure as hell don't want you here! ..." - Phil
Innes (Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:26:52 GMT)
_
"... I simply don't hold enough interest in his
chess writing to want to like or dislike him - or
play him, since he doesn't go in for chess
writing." - Phil Innes (Mon, 26 Jun 2006
12:46:31 GMT)
_
If Phil Innes has decided (1) that "Rynd-Dowd" and
Larry Tapper are the same person, and (2) that PI
is willing to play "Rynd-Dowd", then, perhaps, we
can have a Phil Innes-Larry Tapper grudge match
after all.
Louis Blair
7 ... [Taylor Kingston said:]
7
7 3/17/2002 Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
7 just a few days ago. Due to the recent expansion of
7 ChessCafe's and Russell Enterprises' activities, the
7 company recently moved into new offices, and had a
7 "grand opening" reception, which several dignitaries,
7 including Niro, attended. I was invited too, but couldn't
7 make the long drive. If I had gone, I might have been
7 able to bend Niro's ear a bit on Evans.
7 ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:58:59 GMT):
7 ... You are capabable of stating that the only reason
7 you would have gone to Ct was to bend the new Ex
7 Dir's ear on Evans. Then as if to disprove your any
7 malice about Evans, to then say that you didn't go.
7 ...
_
"Where [in the 3/17/2002 quote] is there an
assertion about "the only reason" that Taylor
Kingston would have [attended the ChessCafe
event]? (See the beginning of this note.)"
- Louis Blair (5 Aug 2006 22:11:16 -0700)
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
g4 wrote:
> <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1155539841.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > That's just it. "Promises. Promises." A vast
> > storehouse, a gigantic promiscuity, of promises.
> >
> > Neil Brennen is forever promising to ignore
> > people, and he never does.
> >
>
> Neil is akin to the alcoholic who promises no more drinks, only to evenually
> succumb to temptation. I believe he truly means to ignore Phil / Philth / Philsy
> but the attraction to respond is just too great.
>
> Perhaps Neil should found a Phil Innes Anonmyous, for those who cannot
> resist answering Innes' nonsense and stupidity.
In fact, such a group was started at another newsgroup a few months
ago. Philsy threatened a regular poster, and emails started going back
and forth with promises to ignore Innes. People united and turned their
online backs to the Nearly an IM 2450. And folks, it can happen here!
Gentlemen, the time has come. I will be the first to take the pledge.
Please add your name to the list below
"I pledge to not respond to the newsgroup postings and email of Philip
Keith Innes, even if they are addressed to me, or I am the subject of
them."
Neil Brennen
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
g4 wrote:
> <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1155539841.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > That's just it. "Promises. Promises." A vast
> > storehouse, a gigantic promiscuity, of promises.
> >
> > Neil Brennen is forever promising to ignore
> > people, and he never does.
> >
>
> Neil is akin to the alcoholic who promises no more drinks, only to evenually
> succumb to temptation. I believe he truly means to ignore Phil / Philth / Philsy
> but the attraction to respond is just too great.
That is correct. And it's a shame. I've shown great commitment to my
weight loss - 86 pounds in seven months - and yet I can't give up the
empty calories Philsy dishes up each day?
> Perhaps Neil should found a Phil Innes Anonmyous, for those who cannot
> resist answering Innes' nonsense and stupidity.
See The Innes Pledge post. Will you sign as well?
A typical meeting can start off
> with a declaration to ignore and killfile for good that certain unnamed person.
> Afterwards, members take turns standing and telling their story ... like ..
> "My name is James Rynd, and I cannot resist responding with the same
> messages ad nauseum when that man responds to me. I know it's wrong for
> an intelligent person such as myself to do battle with a mental midget, but the stimulation ... the
> attraction ... oh gawd, I NEED help." At that point, as he
> breaks down, the fellow next to him (Taylor Kinston?) puts his arm around
> his shoulders and reassures by saying, "That's ok. You did the right thing coming
> here. We will tackle this problem one message at a time."
Bravo! Wonderful work, g4!
> > My heavens! Neil used to killfile me because, as
> > he once put the matter, my messages upset his morning
> > diet with coffee, toast, eggs and rashers of bacon.
> > But then he unkillfiled me, killfiled me, unkillfiled
> > me, and so on.
>
> How often one killfiles and un-killfiles you is his right. No explanation needed.
Please note I've correct Parr before on my eating habits. I never had
coffee with breakfast, and rarely ate eggs or bacon. Although lately
I've developed a taste for turkey bacon. I need to watch the salt,
though.
> > My attitude has always been one of strict
> > neutrality: let him make promises and let him violate
> > them without my expressing an opinion about the
> > promises and their later violations. I continue this policy.
>
> You just did express an opinion, moron.
Hmm, maybe g4 should take The Parr Pledge?
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
g4 wrote:
> <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1155539841.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > That's just it. "Promises. Promises." A vast
> > storehouse, a gigantic promiscuity, of promises.
> >
> > Neil Brennen is forever promising to ignore
> > people, and he never does.
> >
>
> Neil is akin to the alcoholic who promises no more drinks, only to evenually
> succumb to temptation. I believe he truly means to ignore Phil / Philth / Philsy
> but the attraction to respond is just too great.
That is correct. And it's a shame. I've shown great commitment to my
weight loss - 86 pounds in seven months - and yet I can't give up the
empty calories Philsy dishes up each day?
> Perhaps Neil should found a Phil Innes Anonmyous, for those who cannot
> resist answering Innes' nonsense and stupidity.
See The Innes Pledge post. Will you sign as well?
A typical meeting can start off
> with a declaration to ignore and killfile for good that certain unnamed person.
> Afterwards, members take turns standing and telling their story ... like ..
> "My name is James Rynd, and I cannot resist responding with the same
> messages ad nauseum when that man responds to me. I know it's wrong for
> an intelligent person such as myself to do battle with a mental midget, but the stimulation ... the
> attraction ... oh gawd, I NEED help." At that point, as he
> breaks down, the fellow next to him (Taylor Kinston?) puts his arm around
> his shoulders and reassures by saying, "That's ok. You did the right thing coming
> here. We will tackle this problem one message at a time."
Bravo! Wonderful work, g4!
> > My heavens! Neil used to killfile me because, as
> > he once put the matter, my messages upset his morning
> > diet with coffee, toast, eggs and rashers of bacon.
> > But then he unkillfiled me, killfiled me, unkillfiled
> > me, and so on.
>
> How often one killfiles and un-killfiles you is his right. No explanation needed.
Please note I've correct Parr before on my eating habits. I never had
coffee with breakfast, and rarely ate eggs or bacon. Although lately
I've developed a taste for turkey bacon. I need to watch the salt,
though.
> > My attitude has always been one of strict
> > neutrality: let him make promises and let him violate
> > them without my expressing an opinion about the
> > promises and their later violations. I continue this policy.
>
> You just did express an opinion, moron.
Hmm, maybe g4 should take The Parr Pledge?
> On the other hand, you have been silent about jr claiming on more than one
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
Take The Innes Pledge, James!
parrt...@cs.com
>Even better, Neuralyte won't be picked up on FIDE drug testing and
will give you the ability to salivate over the grandmaster column of
your choosing. Side effects include: Nausea, vomiting, and an impulse
to leave the United States and live in a third world shithole. Brain
atrophy lasting longer than 4 hours should be reported to your
physician."> -- advice from Rynd-Dowd to yours truly
While on the subject of stalking. Rynd-Dowd
accused Phil Innes of such, though Phil merely invited
the poor man or men to his home in Vermont. Phil
would not have been travelling to the Rynd-Dowd locus;
Rynd-Dowd would have been travelling to Phil's place.
Today, we have a series of postings by Rynd-Dowd
in response to a single message written by this
writer. We are delighted by such obsessive attention
because we live far away.
Earlier, Rynd-Dowd apologized on this forum for
forging my name at an academic site. Later, he or
they referred to his/their act as "using" my name.
Now, he/they asks/ask for proof of what he/they
earlier admitted. Lovin' it.
The big hit was the phrase, "neurasthenic
concussion," to describe Rynd-Dowd's evident emotional
difficulties in his or their postings. When he or
they must then revert to the line about this writer
living in a Third World scheissehole -- otherwise
known as Kuala Lumpur, the large, modern capital of
Malaysia -- one knows that one's phrase described
Rynd-Dowd's emotional perturbations. It hit home.
In short, zingo.
Rynd-Dowd brought up the issue of Larry Tapper
seeking a summer vacation in Phil Innes' front yard,
likely intending to camp in a tent on the front lawn.
Here one thinks that the gent or gents has or
have a point. We urged Phil to help out the Tapper
Man, who described his own area of abode as
Deliverance country. We argued that Phil ought to do
the good and big thing by feeding Mr. Tapper,
providing him free front yard rent and the like.
Phil proved unwilling to extend hospitality to
the importunate Mr. Tapper. After all, tent camps do
eventually run into sanitary problems. On the other
hand, Phil did extend an invitation(s) to Rynd-Dowd
for a visit. This writer offered to foot half of
Rynd-Dowd's bus expenses.
We have a lesson in manners at hand.
The Tapper-man attempted to invite himself to
Phil Innes' place. Phil declined the invitation to
offer hospitality. He let the Tapper-man know.
parrt...@cs.com
"I pledge to not respond to the newsgroup postings and
email of Philip Keith Innes, even if they are addressed to
me, or I am the subject of them." -- Neil Brennen (aka
The Historian, Spam scone and Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper,
University of Brattleboro)
Neil Brennen is really shaking, rattling and
rolling. Moreover, you know it is the real Neil. His
"to not respond" to Phil Innes rather than "not to
respond" is vintage Brennenian syntax.
Still, all we really have is promises, promises,
promises. Neil will fold presently.
Where to begin? Let's return to the days of
yesteryear with a discussion of the article, "The," a
classic thread.
Phil could offer an appreciation of what it means
when another claims to be the Historian of the
Pennyslvania State Chess Federation. What kind of
person would ever introduce himself to Tinytown with
such a pompous title?
ATTACK OF THE ANONYMICE
Over the last couple of days yours truly has
been the target of quite a few anonymice, which given
my residence in the Far East is nohing to worry about.
One doesn't have to lose sleep over Mr. Rocket,
wondering about my daughter. He will never show up
at the door. Moreover, security is excellent and the
gent would be apprehended tidily enough and shipped
back home, were he ever to find his way to Kuala
Lumpur or Singapore. He is no threat.
Then there is g4, formerly Say No to g4 and a public
antagonist of this writer who got burned many times.
He prefers wrap his ego in the cloak of anonymity.
Nattering nasty Nomen Nescio has an ego and
evidently hates this writer almost as much as he
detests Marcus Roberts. But if one looks at Nomen's
clature in his messages, you know he is not dangerous.
Ego-glower, yes. Willpower, no.
As for the anonymice created by NMnot Taylor
Kingston -- Xylothist, Paulie Graf, Niemand and
possibly others -- they are nearly worthless these
days. Our NMnot can no longer employ them to praise
himself or, for that matter, to attack this writer without
raising a smile, one figures, even from Louie the Blair.
Help Bog is Greg Kennedy. H.B. began as a mala
fide attempt at being an anonymouse. For a few
postings, Greg managed a semblance of rigor; but he
could not maintain the posture. Subjects arose about
which he knew relatively little, and like the Greg of
old he felt constrained to pretend knowledge. Then
came all of the trademark Kennedy mistakes followed by
frantic silliness in numerous messages. Someone called
his screeds "nocturnal emissions." Greg still has not
done the necessary reading, and one reckons he never will.
We have become the target of the anonymice
element, and we take pleasure in the fact.
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro wrote:
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
"NO MORE MR. NICE NEIL
"I have taken the pledge. I shall never call Neil Brennen"The
Historian" again. He can crawl, he can beg, he can promise to watch
Richard Laurie's wonderful Knight of the Id every night on tape with
me, but I shall never call him The Historian again. He has lost his
Talisman, his juju, his mojo." - Larry Parr, April 26, 2005
And as I wrote in reply, "Promises, promises."
g4
"Larry Tapper" <larry_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155562720....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
g4
"Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155601842.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Perhaps Neil should found a Phil Innes Anonmyous, for those who cannot
>> resist answering Innes' nonsense and stupidity.
>
> See The Innes Pledge post. Will you sign as well?
>
Why? I don't have The Problem. You don't see me responding to Phil, even tho
he tries to bait me by calling me shy. Yes, I can walk away any time I want.
g4
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1155565012.7...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
See? I know what I'm talking about.
But for now we need to focus our attention on Vince Hart 'cause he seems
to have fallen off the wagon again.
g4
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1155565379.9...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>
>> And now, Rynd-Dowd accuse or accuses this writer
>> of an obsession with their or his person(s) after
>> they/he earlier forged the name of yours truly at an
>> academic site.
>
> I suppose asking for proof of same would be too much?
Yes it would. Don't you know that is some parts of the chess world, parr
and Evans are God? (ok, God 1 and God 2) The mere fact that either levels
an accusation is proof enough in and of itself. To ask for proof would offend
God (1 & 2.)
Would it be like
> asking Phil for the witnesses supposedly involved in his email ghost
> story, or even the email itself? Would be like asking Phil, seemingly a
> thousand times, for the emails that supposedly are so incriminating to
> Taylor Kingston? Would it be like asking you to tell the truth?
Phil is one of God's disciples. Phil receives his messages in visions and
dreams. Once again, no proof is required since God is talking thru Phil.
(or perhaps Phil believes that God is sending him messages)
Larry Tapper
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> NO HOLIDAY IN VERMONT
> ...Rynd-Dowd brought up the issue of Larry Tapper
> seeking a summer vacation in Phil Innes' front yard,
> likely intending to camp in a tent on the front lawn.
>
> Here one thinks that the gent or gents has or
> have a point. We urged Phil to help out the Tapper
> Man, who described his own area of abode as
> Deliverance country. We argued that Phil ought to do
> the good and big thing by feeding Mr. Tapper,
> providing him free front yard rent and the like.
>
> Phil proved unwilling to extend hospitality to
> the importunate Mr. Tapper. After all, tent camps do
> eventually run into sanitary problems. On the other
> hand, Phil did extend an invitation(s) to Rynd-Dowd
> for a visit. This writer offered to foot half of
> Rynd-Dowd's bus expenses.
>
> We have a lesson in manners at hand.
>
> The Tapper-man attempted to invite himself to
> Phil Innes' place. Phil declined the invitation to
> offer hospitality. He let the Tapper-man know.
>
Does it matter that I did not, in fact, attempt to invite myself to
Phil Innes' place, as Larry Parr knows perfectly well?
I guess it depends on whether you think of Parr primarily as a humorist
or as a liar. If you ask me, the lying tends to spoil the humor.
Larry T.
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155517188.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>>
>> You seem to have denied earlier today that you sent me any messages at
>> all =
>> but let's let that pass, because, as ani ful no, since Taylor Kingston is
>> an
>> honorable man and would never lie about anything, even he had proof of
>> it,
>> below
>> which he can't resist stating at a safe distance, and even though he
>> talks
>> of windbags.
>
>
> actual email address (as well as those I mentioned from months ago -
> which you truncated to a few hours): I used that so you could send me a
> copy of the email I had supposedly sent you
I think this must have been the first e-mail, and I only assume it was from
you since it has the same address to this post I now respond to - this is
the e-mail which said you had been unwell for a few days... is that the one
in question?
> - so far nothing. I did
> indicate that I would prefer you not use it for anything else.
>
> You had accused me of sending you emails often, including one on the
> 12th. That was what I denied - having contacted you only from the email
> address I always use and have used. You refused to post it, indicating
> witnesses of your choosing had it under review.
I have received two emails from you recently - before that you initated a
correspondance some 6 months ago. Is this 'accusing'? What sort of
fantastical language is this which also accused me of stalking?
In short - I say you sent me two emails recently.
> It would seem prudent that you admit that no such email was sent to
> you, and that you also sent nothing to any so-called "witnesses." You
> indicated one was a friend of mine; a friend of mine would have
> contacted me about it by now.
Didn't I say 'no friend of mine', rather than 'friend of yours'?
> Or you need to identify who this friend
> of mine is that you sent it to. I was quite unaware that you were
> familiar with my social and professional friends; the fact that you
> claim to be strikes me as a bit creepy - I'll avoid the "s" word since
> it seems to inflame you so.
You seem to first get things wrong, then get a bit paranoid, then make pissy
statements about others.
> If you are unwilling to do this,
To do what?
> I will accept no less than a full
> public apology from you for your disingenuous attempt to smear me and
> then continuing to lie about it,
I asked if you would like to come to Vermont for a week.
In some sort of insanely contorted public dance you now seem to feel as
though I need apologise - but for what? What smear? You either want to come
and stay or not.
I can't be responsible for what else goes on in your mind, based on such an
open invitation, nor even understand what is smeared?
> although that's about the same thing,
> isn't it? This is nothing to make light of Phil - you can call me
> anything you want, but lying about me is not going to be tolerated.
What lie?
I wonder if you are capable of simply stating plain facts with out spinning
them and getting dizzy? You should tell the people here if you sent me an
email under the rynd name, and then one under the dowd name [initials]- or
if you did not! 1 email or 2 emails?
I have to guess from your message above that you say you only wrote once,
but am I correct that this is your complaint?
In which case you should be alert to the fact that someone else seems to be
using the jame...@aol.com identity and referenced "Grandmaster Janevski's
on paradoxes in the #2.." in their first paragraph.
In their second message from a different e-mail address which uses Doctor...
beginning, a person wrote as their last paragraph,
"Thank you for listening to this and please use this address as sparingly as
possible as your presence in my mailbox is not wanted unless absolutely
necessary."
Are you stating that you sent me one of these messages and not the other?
Which one did you send?
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
Larry Tapper wrote:
> parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> > The Tapper-man attempted to invite himself to
> > Phil Innes' place. Phil declined the invitation to
> > offer hospitality. He let the Tapper-man know.
>
> Does it matter that I did not, in fact, attempt to invite myself to
> Phil Innes' place, as Larry Parr knows perfectly well?
> I guess it depends on whether you think of Parr primarily as a humorist
> or as a liar. If you ask me, the lying tends to spoil the humor.
Parr may think of himself as a humorist rather than a liar, just as
Pepe Le Pew thought of himself as irresistibly attractive.
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> <jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > You had accused me of sending you emails often, including one on the
> > 12th. That was what I denied - having contacted you only from the email
> > address I always use and have used. You refused to post it, indicating
> > witnesses of your choosing had it under review.
>
> I have received two emails from you recently - before that you initated a
> correspondance some 6 months ago. Is this 'accusing'?
No, but this certainly is:
"You coward! You write me e-mails full of paranoia from an address
which cannot receive a response." -- Innes to Rynd on rgcp, Sat, Aug 12
2006 5:15 PM.
> > Rynd: It would seem prudent that you admit that no such email was sent to
> > you, and that you also sent nothing to any so-called "witnesses." You
> > indicated one was a friend of mine; a friend of mine would have
> > contacted me about it by now.
>
> Innes: Didn't I say 'no friend of mine', rather than 'friend of yours'?
"Copied two witnesses, one a friend of mine, and one a friend of
yours." -- Innes to Rynd on rgcp, Sun, Aug 13 2006 8:53 AM.
> Innes to Rynd: In some sort of insanely contorted public dance you now seem to feel
> as though I need apologise - but for what? What smear?
I believe Mr. Rynd is referring to this smear:
"You coward! You write me e-mails full of paranoia from an address
which cannot receive a response." -- Innes on rgcp, Sat, Aug 12 2006
5:15 PM.
One of these "emails full of paranoia" is said to have been sent
"Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM" (Innes to Rynd on rgcp, Sun, Aug
13 2006 8:53 AM). Rynd has denied sending anything to Innes on that
date (or for at least 6 months previous) and Innes has repeatedly
failed to show any evidence that this e-mail actually exists.
"6 months? Nothing like kicking off a post with a big whopper!
Latest: Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM. Copied two witnesses, one a
friend of mine, and one a friend of yours." -- Innes on rgcp, Sun, Aug
13 2006 8:53 AM.
As the "friend of Rynd" cited above, I hereby state that I have seen
nothing to establish the existence of this 8/12/06 12:45 PM e-mail.
> Innes: I can't be responsible for what else goes on in your mind,
No, Phil, but you can (and most definitely should) take
responsibility for your own words.
Chess One
"g4" <g...@optonline.com> wrote in message
news:zvZDg.9578$Zd6....@newsfe08.lga...
> <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1155539841.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> That's just it. "Promises. Promises." A vast
>> storehouse, a gigantic promiscuity, of promises.
>>
>> Neil Brennen is forever promising to ignore
>> people, and he never does.
>>
>
> Neil is akin to the alcoholic who promises no more drinks, only to
> evenually
> succumb to temptation. I believe he truly means to ignore Phil / Philth /
> Philsy
> but the attraction to respond is just too great.
>
> start off
> with a declaration to ignore and killfile for good that certain unnamed
> person.
This is a great idea! An Anon's Anonymous!
Then those people who never address chess if there is the slightest chance
to regret that others do, can GO AWAY! Of course, many people are only
pseudo-anons, and they let other people know 'who they are', and not only
that, but of their magnificence, and would never join Anons Anon, because
the very idea of repressing their ego is distasteful to them.
Meanwhile, I seem to be required to apologise to Dr. Dowd for whatever I
did, and am perfectly willing to do so, and would be more specific if I knew
my offense. But please talk amongst yourselves, obsess about each other's
personalities and so on, inquiries are on-going.
Any chess happen in this country this week?
Phil Innes
> Afterwards, members take turns standing and telling their story ... like
> ..
> "My name is James Rynd, and I cannot resist responding with the same
> messages ad nauseum when that man responds to me. I know it's wrong for
> an intelligent person such as myself to do battle with a mental midget,
> but the stimulation ... the attraction ... oh gawd, I NEED help." At that
> point, as he
> breaks down, the fellow next to him (Taylor Kinston?) puts his arm around
> his shoulders and reassures by saying, "That's ok. You did the right thing
> coming
> here. We will tackle this problem one message at a time."
>
>
>> My heavens! Neil used to killfile me because, as
>> he once put the matter, my messages upset his morning
>> diet with coffee, toast, eggs and rashers of bacon.
>> But then he unkillfiled me, killfiled me, unkillfiled
>> me, and so on.
>>
>
> How often one killfiles and un-killfiles you is his right. No explanation
> needed.
>
>
>
>> My attitude has always been one of strict
>> neutrality: let him make promises and let him violate
>> them without my expressing an opinion about the
>> promises and their later violations. I continue this policy.
>>
>
> You just did express an opinion, moron.
>
Chess One
> Whom did you copy? If they have something relevant, let them produce
> it, and you may come out smelling like a rose.
:0
Dear Taylor Kingston,
I hope it is now abundantly clear what I asked witnesses to do - which was
absolutely nothing. Not speculate, prove, investigate or intrigue.
Nothing.
I forwarded 2 messages I claim to have received which I understood Dowd to
have sent to my e-mail. That's it!
Phil Innes
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> Dear Dr. D.
>> Therefore I am a stalker, etc., as you would prefer it to appear in
>> public,
>> and I merely use the term differently than yourself and Taylor Kingston.
>
> Indeed, you do use it differently, Phil, especially since a quick
> Google search shows that I have never used the term in any post.
Who said it was in a post? You did. I didn't.
You have sent me rather a lot of emails. But let you be right Taylor! O
Gawd! Let no opportunity pass to be magnificently right, especially at
someone else's cost.
But back on topic - I was amazed that even you would fudge the issue of
stalking to this extent.
Psst! see 5 grand note below, he shouldn't be so confident should he? Of
course, the bet is unspecific, since he doesn't say what he is betting on -
certainly not if the matter is that he sent I or 2 emails [and technically
3].
Toodles, Phil
>> You seem to have denied earlier today that you sent me any messages at
>> all =
>> but let's let that pass, because, as ani ful no, since Taylor Kingston is
>> an
>> honorable man and would never lie about anything, even he had proof of
>> it,
>
> I ask again: what "proof" is it that I supposedly have? I'm sincerely
> curious about this.
>
>> even something this trivial, and even despite his evident petty spite
>> below
>> which he can't resist stating at a safe distance, and even though he
>> talks
>> of windbags.
>
> In the quote below, I say nothing about spite or windbags. I simply
> asked: "Who are these witnesses, and what are they supposed to decide?"
> Still waiting for you to enlighten me.
>
>> <jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> Meanwhile, I seem to be required to apologise to Dr. Dowd for whatever I
> did, and am perfectly willing to do so, and would be more specific if I knew
> my offense.
Nonsense, Phil. Your offense has already been clearly pointed out, by
both Dowd and myself, e.g. my message above, posted about 20 minutes
before this latest of yours and which I'm sure you had already read.
We all know you will not apologize. No matter how many times your
offense is clearly spelled out, you will continue to feign ignorance,
pretend not to understand, deliberately ignore the obvious, shift your
ground, bluff, bluster, spout nonsense and try to divert, as you did in
the matter of your misrepresenting David Kane.
> Any chess happen in this country this week?
See? Diverting already!
Chess One
>
> g4 wrote:
>> <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155539841.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > That's just it. "Promises. Promises." A vast
>> > storehouse, a gigantic promiscuity, of promises.
>> >
>> > Neil Brennen is forever promising to ignore
>> > people, and he never does.
>> >
>>
>> Neil is akin to the alcoholic who promises no more drinks, only to
>> evenually
>> succumb to temptation. I believe he truly means to ignore Phil / Philth /
>> Philsy
>> but the attraction to respond is just too great.
>>
>> Perhaps Neil should found a Phil Innes Anonmyous, for those who cannot
>> resist answering Innes' nonsense and stupidity.
>
> In fact, such a group was started at another newsgroup a few months
> ago. Philsy threatened a regular poster, and emails started going back
> and forth with promises to ignore Innes.
You should let your publisher know about this group! He initiated some
conversations with me. He is quite different than you and seems to have a
deep and genuine interest in chess.
Now - no more obsessing about my magnificance - do some chess work, improve
your rating, and maybe one day, you too will be engagable.
PI
Chess One
"Non scrivetemi" <nonscr...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote in message
>
> I pledges this, and also I pledges never to buy a Shahcom board because
> Philsy is such an asshole.
Whoops <--American
> I clarifies that baiting is not qualified as 'responding'.
>
> Dr Calvin Abu Hindoo Qusz, Jr.
Is that you Tim? I still have your and Taylor's correspondance when you
acused him of being Qusz. Your ruffled his feathers you know.
Phil
PS: Only one person on this newsgroup hates Shahcom so as to mention it
obsessively for 5 years, though not for any reason as such, as they have no
reason,
This person who I will call the Lybraryun even wrote to them demanding to
know what the financial basis of the arrangement was. Even though they
answered him - this Lybraryun would never think of actually telling you the
truth. That force is not strong enough in him, and Larry is going to have a
hard time becoming 'more proactive.' I am in some admiration at the attempt.
I suggest all stalkers and Liars take the Innes Pledge and fuck off out of
chess. You can quote me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> <jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > You had accused me of sending you emails often, including one on the
>> > 12th. That was what I denied - having contacted you only from the email
>> > address I always use and have used. You refused to post it, indicating
>> > witnesses of your choosing had it under review.
>>
>> I have received two emails from you recently - before that you initated a
>> correspondance some 6 months ago. Is this 'accusing'?
>
> No, but this certainly is:
>
> "You coward! You write me e-mails full of paranoia from an address
> which cannot receive a response." -- Innes to Rynd on rgcp, Sat, Aug 12
> 2006 5:15 PM.
I am 'accusing' him of sending me an email which cannot receive a return
address, but which posits all sorts of questions to me which question my
actions - rather rhetorical 'questions' aren't they Taylor, if you couldn't
reply to them?
Let us know - but only if you want to - not for me but becasue you want to,
if you think he is accusing me of things without permitting means of reply,
and if saying so is 'stalking' him.
Who knows if you will chgaracterise this behavior as 'brave', eg?
>> > Rynd: It would seem prudent that you admit that no such email was sent
>> > to
>> > you, and that you also sent nothing to any so-called "witnesses." You
>> > indicated one was a friend of mine; a friend of mine would have
>> > contacted me about it by now.
>>
>> Innes: Didn't I say 'no friend of mine', rather than 'friend of yours'?
>
> "Copied two witnesses, one a friend of mine, and one a friend of
> yours." -- Innes to Rynd on rgcp, Sun, Aug 13 2006 8:53 AM.
Why is Taylor Kinston replying for the Rynd/Dowd couplet? He is spoiling the
veracity of the message, since I had hoped Dr D would repond this way -
which would actually prove something about the message itself. Meanwhile we
wait til Dr D makes his own response, since its the most exciting thing
happening in the entire USA....
Meanwhile Taylor is 'helping' us understand things.
>> Innes to Rynd: In some sort of insanely contorted public dance you now
>> seem to feel
>> as though I need apologise - but for what? What smear?
>
> I believe Mr. Rynd is referring to this smear:
>
> "You coward! You write me e-mails full of paranoia from an address
> which cannot receive a response." -- Innes on rgcp, Sat, Aug 12 2006
> 5:15 PM.
But 'this smear' as Kingston puts it, is not disputed to be the truth. Or is
it? Does Kingston say that the address can or cannot receive a response? In
other words the plain fact of mentioning this subject of sending material to
me which cannot be replied to, is called 'a smear'.
> One of these "emails full of paranoia" is said to have been sent
> "Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM" (Innes to Rynd on rgcp, Sun, Aug
> 13 2006 8:53 AM). Rynd has denied sending anything to Innes on that
> date (or for at least 6 months previous) and Innes has repeatedly
> failed to show any evidence that this e-mail actually exists.
Kingston wants evidence but he doesn't ask Dowd - why not? I have.
I have asked if he sent me 2 messages recently. I am unclear from Dowd's own
writing if he denies this or not. What Kingston wants would surely be
resolved if Dowd addressed the subject.
Not only have I NOT failed to show the message to Kingston, I have sent it
to him! What Kingston wants to know is implicitly if I invented it or Dowd
sent it. But why does Kingston question if its true - What's it to him -
apparently not enough to ask Dowd himself, while he is very ready to call me
names because I have written of his own 'practices' in this respect ;)
> "6 months? Nothing like kicking off a post with a big whopper!
> Latest: Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM. Copied two witnesses, one a
> friend of mine, and one a friend of yours." -- Innes on rgcp, Sun, Aug
> 13 2006 8:53 AM.
>
> As the "friend of Rynd" cited above, I hereby state that I have seen
> nothing to establish the existence of this 8/12/06 12:45 PM e-mail.
How many different messages purportedly from Rynd/Dowd did YOU receive?
I have asked him how many HE sent.
Maybe you will be able to correlate this complex mathematical puzzle, and if
indeed you conclude with me that 1+1=2, and that the same messages I
forwarded are the ones you received, and Rynd/Dowd sent the very same
messages - perhaps then you won't continue to be confused - and do your
usual thing - accuse other people of
>> Innes: I can't be responsible for what else goes on in your mind,
>
> No, Phil, but you can (and most definitely should) take
> responsibility for your own words.
...being irresponsible or what's the other one, Peyote-Pete?
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
Phil, you know very well that I have asked Dowd. He denies your
claim, as I stated in the sentence immediately preceding yours above.
Apparently you don't remember what you read from one line to the next.
> I have asked if he sent me 2 messages recently. I am unclear from Dowd's own
> writing if he denies this or not. What Kingston wants would surely be
> resolved if Dowd addressed the subject.
>
> Not only have I NOT failed to show the message to Kingston, I have sent it
> to him!
Ah, Phil, Phil, we've been through all this. What you sent was a
cut-and-paste job from an rgcp post by Dowd in this thread, dated
8/12/2006, 12:46 PM. There was nothing to show that it was an e-mail
sent to you from some fictitious address. You provided no e-mail
header. You did not send it to me as a forwarded e-mail -- you merely
put parts of Dowd's rgcp post into the body of _your_ e-mail.
> What Kingston wants to know is implicitly if I invented it or Dowd
> sent it. But why does Kingston question if its true - What's it to him -
Very simple, Phil. Because I enjoy exposing you as a liar.
> apparently not enough to ask Dowd himself,
Phil, for the umpteenth time, you know very well that I _have_ asked
Dowd. He denies sending you any e-mail on 8/12/2006
> > "6 months? Nothing like kicking off a post with a big whopper!
> > Latest: Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM. Copied two witnesses, one a
> > friend of mine, and one a friend of yours." -- Innes on rgcp, Sun, Aug
> > 13 2006 8:53 AM.
> >
> > As the "friend of Rynd" cited above, I hereby state that I have seen
> > nothing to establish the existence of this 8/12/06 12:45 PM e-mail.
>
> How many different messages purportedly from Rynd/Dowd did YOU receive?
>
> I have asked him how many HE sent.
>
> Maybe you will be able to correlate this complex mathematical puzzle, and if
> indeed you conclude with me that 1+1=2, and that the same messages I
> forwarded are the ones you received,
You sent me only _one_ message purported to be from Dowd, not _two_.
It was the cut-and-paste job mentioned above.
> and Rynd/Dowd sent the very same messages -
That's where we part company. For the umpteenth time: Dowd denies
sending. Here, read him again:
"You had accused me of sending you emails often, including one on the
12th. That was what I denied."
You've presented nothing to prove otherwise. I feel sure you never
will.
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> Meanwhile, I seem to be required to apologise to Dr. Dowd for whatever I
>> did, and am perfectly willing to do so, and would be more specific if I
>> knew
>> my offense.
>
> Nonsense, Phil. Your offense has already been clearly pointed out, by
> both Dowd and myself, e.g. my message above, posted about 20 minutes
> before this latest of yours and which I'm sure you had already read.
> We all know you will not apologize. No matter how many times your
> offense is clearly spelled out, you will continue to feign ignorance,
What are you talking about? And why are /you/ talking at all? What could be
the subject of this vague stuff you write a whole paragraph about?
> pretend not to understand, deliberately ignore the obvious, shift your
> ground, bluff, bluster, spout nonsense and try to divert, as you did in
> the matter of your misrepresenting David Kane.
>
>> Any chess happen in this country this week?
>
> See? Diverting already!
Diverting from a bit of vague ad hominem to what the newsgroup is about.
Tell me you understand that. Or in fact any specific thing - but really I
wait for Dowd to say if he wrote me the two messages, and why he is so upset
about my offer.
Phil
Chess One
Asked what, vague one?
> He denies your
> claim,
what claim, vafgue one?
> as I stated in the sentence immediately preceding yours above.
> Apparently you don't remember what you read from one line to the next.
You are not so very bright a person to insinuate yourself in this = what are
you talking about?
What is the subject matter you are addressing - just write it out. Don't
continue to be so vague - otherwise people will think you are weak minded
and too shy to say what you think.
>> I have asked if he sent me 2 messages recently. I am unclear from Dowd's
>> own
>> writing if he denies this or not. What Kingston wants would surely be
>> resolved if Dowd addressed the subject.
>>
>> Not only have I NOT failed to show the message to Kingston, I have sent
>> it
>> to him!
>
> Ah, Phil, Phil, we've been through all this. What you sent was a
> cut-and-paste job from an rgcp post by Dowd in this thread, dated
> 8/12/2006, 12:46 PM. There was nothing to show that it was an e-mail
> sent to you from some fictitious address.
That's right. I did not show Taylor Kingston anything to show that it was an
email from any particualr address.
> You provided no e-mail
> header. You did not send it to me as a forwarded e-mail -- you merely
> put parts of Dowd's rgcp post into the body of _your_ e-mail.
Although you say you asked Dowd something [what?] - did you ask him if he
sent both messages I then forwarded and which you received?
Come on brave mouth, say something straight for once? Can you?
>> What Kingston wants to know is implicitly if I invented it or Dowd
>> sent it. But why does Kingston question if its true - What's it to him -
>
> Very simple, Phil. Because I enjoy exposing you as a liar.
I am afraid you have commited a libel - you even admit you have no proof if
the letters originated from Dowd or not - in fact although you say you have
talked with him, you do not say what the topic was - but you suggest in this
reply that I lie about receiving the 2 e-mails which you thenm received. Is
this to be the basis of the suit?
>> apparently not enough to ask Dowd himself,
>
> Phil, for the umpteenth time, you know very well that I _have_ asked
> Dowd. He denies sending you any e-mail on 8/12/2006
Why doesn't Dowd himself reply? Did he sens it the previous day - did he
send two e-mail messages? - what is brave mouth Kingston actually saying?
>> > "6 months? Nothing like kicking off a post with a big whopper!
>> > Latest: Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM. Copied two witnesses, one a
>> > friend of mine, and one a friend of yours." -- Innes on rgcp, Sun, Aug
>> > 13 2006 8:53 AM.
>> >
>> > As the "friend of Rynd" cited above, I hereby state that I have seen
>> > nothing to establish the existence of this 8/12/06 12:45 PM e-mail.
>>
>> How many different messages purportedly from Rynd/Dowd did YOU receive?
>>
>> I have asked him how many HE sent.
>>
>> Maybe you will be able to correlate this complex mathematical puzzle, and
>> if
>> indeed you conclude with me that 1+1=2, and that the same messages I
>> forwarded are the ones you received,
>
> You sent me only _one_ message purported to be from Dowd, not _two_.
> It was the cut-and-paste job mentioned above.
You have to remember that there is another witness. So now you claim I only
sent you one message purporting to be from Dowd -!!!!
>> and Rynd/Dowd sent the very same messages -
>
> That's where we part company. For the umpteenth time: Dowd denies
> sending. Here, read him again:
>
> "You had accused me of sending you emails often, including one on the
> 12th. That was what I denied."
Did he send it one minute to midnight on the 11th? You are such a weasel
Kingston.
Dowd himself has gone to ground, leaving you to bark.
> You've presented nothing to prove otherwise.
YOU are demanding proof - but Dowd has not denied anything to me - he wrote
me two emails - and my server actually records them as being received. Maybe
his servers did too, as sending them. Did anyone mention what the $5,000 was
for? ;))
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1155656116....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >> Meanwhile, I seem to be required to apologise to Dr. Dowd for whatever I
> >> did, and am perfectly willing to do so, and would be more specific if I
> >> knew
> >> my offense.
> >
> > Nonsense, Phil. Your offense has already been clearly pointed out, by
> > both Dowd and myself, e.g. my message above, posted about 20 minutes
> > before this latest of yours and which I'm sure you had already read.
> > We all know you will not apologize. No matter how many times your
> > offense is clearly spelled out, you will continue to feign ignorance,
>
> What are you talking about? And why are /you/ talking at all? What could be
> the subject of this vague stuff you write a whole paragraph about?
Feigning ignorance, exactly as I predicted!
> > pretend not to understand, deliberately ignore the obvious, shift your
> > ground, bluff, bluster, spout nonsense and try to divert, as you did in
> > the matter of your misrepresenting David Kane.
> >
> >> Any chess happen in this country this week?
> >
> > See? Diverting already!
>
> Diverting from a bit of vague ad hominem to what the newsgroup is about.
Deliberately ignoring the obvious, just as I predicted!
> Tell me you understand that. Or in fact any specific thing - but really I
> wait for Dowd to say if he wrote me the two messages, and why he is so upset
> about my offer.
Pretending not to understand, just as I predicted! This is rich.
jame...@aol.com
Chess One wrote:
>
> YOU are demanding proof - but Dowd has not denied anything to me - he wrote
> me two emails - and my server actually records them as being received. Maybe
> his servers did too, as sending them. Did anyone mention what the $5,000 was
> for? ;))
Yes I have denied it. I also have my aol logs, which can be provided
when you pony up for the 5 grand bet. I didn't see any response as
necessary, as Taylor has done an excellent job, but you kept claiming I
needed to answer, so here it is again - for probably the tenth time.
I did not write the two emails.
You are the one who appointed Taylor as my witness, and then simply
denigrate him for telling the truth.
The last email I sent Phil Innes is verifiable by my AOL logs as having
occured in November of 2005. That is of course, until *after* he
accused me of sending him the emails, being a coward, etc.
As Taylor noted that is what the apology is for:
1. You lied about me sending two emails on the date in question to you.
2. You then called me a coward, etc. for doing so.
I have repeatedly noted that you don't seem to know a post from an
email. I am not yet disabused of that notion.
So you can continue to confuse the issue and pony up 5 grand for me to
spend once I pass all tests of veracity, or you can apologize.
Things are that simple. The email of Saturday never happened, except in
your imagination. Now apologize for accusing someone of something they
did not do. That is what a person of integrity would do; as the court
here has already ruled against you repeatedly.
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155656116....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Chess One wrote:
>> >> Meanwhile, I seem to be required to apologise to Dr. Dowd for whatever
>> >> I
>> >> did, and am perfectly willing to do so, and would be more specific if
>> >> I
>> >> knew
>> >> my offense.
>> >
>> > Nonsense, Phil. Your offense has already been clearly pointed out, by
>> > both Dowd and myself, e.g. my message above, posted about 20 minutes
>> > before this latest of yours and which I'm sure you had already read.
>> > We all know you will not apologize. No matter how many times your
>> > offense is clearly spelled out, you will continue to feign ignorance,
>>
>> What are you talking about? And why are /you/ talking at all? What could
>> be
>> the subject of this vague stuff you write a whole paragraph about?
>
> Feigning ignorance, exactly as I predicted!
Can anyone be any vaguer? Ignorance of WHAT?
>
>> > pretend not to understand, deliberately ignore the obvious, shift your
>> > ground, bluff, bluster, spout nonsense and try to divert, as you did in
>> > the matter of your misrepresenting David Kane.
>> >
>> >> Any chess happen in this country this week?
>> >
>> > See? Diverting already!
>>
>> Diverting from a bit of vague ad hominem to what the newsgroup is about.
>
> Deliberately ignoring the obvious, just as I predicted!
Having asked Kingston if he is able to say what the matter is, he replies
that I am ignoring something obvious. But not so obvious that he can bare to
speak of it in case he gets sued for calling me a liar?
>> Tell me you understand that. Or in fact any specific thing - but really I
>> wait for Dowd to say if he wrote me the two messages, and why he is so
>> upset
>> about my offer.
>
> Pretending not to understand, just as I predicted! This is rich.
Then snips the real good stuff = like the fact that he has just libeled me,
a $5,000 bet, but where is Dowd in all this? I asked him two plain
questions, the first is if he sent 2 messages to my e-mail.
And....
How come Dowd took such offense to the invitation?
That's about the size of it.
I now have a separate issue with Vaguer Kingston, who has some explaining to
do = not that he will even acknowledge his own accusations in any specific
way. Reminds me of how he attacked Keene here, in a way no court had
thought of.
Taylor Kingston has run these campaigns against Evans and Laurie, against
Keene, and on the recent occasion of E. Schiller being in hospital, couldn't
help but stick his oar in about the quality of the guy's books.
Taylor Kingston has never written a chess book.
But here he acts as seeming proxy for Dowd, and though moronically admits he
neither has or has not any evidence that Dowd wrote the posts, is still able
to conclude that I am lying. That is not even logical is it? Not even if
Dowd denies it - which of us would be telling the truth? Kingston knows!
He says because Dowd says he wrote nothing to me on the 12th - the day my
e-mail records receipt of the message, then, he suggests no message existed
at all. This is Weasel Kingston at his worst - a deliberated obfustication
of the issue.
Should this Dowd bloke ever show up here again, I hope he will make a plain
statement of what transpired, and if indeed he sent me a couple of e-mails
recently. What is so strange about this? - to which Kingston has gone nuts.
Should Dowd admit 2 e-mails, what will Kingston admit? I submit that this is
part of Kingston's pattern of almost telling the truth. He may have gotten
away with attacking Evans, Laurie, Parr, Keene and Schiller as he did, but
to quote myself, I am nobody's boy, and since that comment has apparently
not been understood by those people who are clearly boys, a little
demonstration will occur.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> Should this Dowd bloke ever show up here again, I hope he will make a plain
> statement of what transpired, and if indeed he sent me a couple of e-mails
> recently. What is so strange about this? - to which Kingston has gone nuts.
Phil, do you ever bother to read earlier, relevant posts before you
shoot your mouth off? Dowd *_did_* show up here again, and he did make
"a plain statement of what transpired." It vindicates me and convicts
you. Since once again you seem to be ignoring the obvious, I reproduce
it for your enlightenment:
71 From: jame...@aol.com - view profile
Date: Tues, Aug 15 2006 4:38 pm
Email: "jamesr...@aol.com" <jamesr...@aol.com>
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics
jame...@aol.com
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro wrote:
> And as I wrote in reply, "Promises, promises."
So are you saying the Parrmeister is guilty of plagiarism or is it
simple monotonic repetition?
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155674309.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> YOU are demanding proof - but Dowd has not denied anything to me - he
>> wrote
>> me two emails - and my server actually records them as being received.
>> Maybe
>> his servers did too, as sending them. Did anyone mention what the $5,000
>> was
>> for? ;))
>
> Yes I have denied it. I also have my aol logs, which can be provided
> when you pony up for the 5 grand bet. I didn't see any response as
> necessary, as Taylor has done an excellent job, but you kept claiming I
> needed to answer, so here it is again - for probably the tenth time.
>
> I did not write the two emails.
Okay - so we can have a bet - how shall we arrange it? Both the finances and
the money.
I say I received one message from the same address you use here, the
rynd@aol, and one from another aol account, Doct...@aol.com
<Doct...@aol.com> though actually two, since the first contained an
attachment which I declined to open - then Doct...@aol.com
<Doct...@aol.com> sent another message in plain text with no attachment.
I therefore challenge your assertion that I did not receive these two
messages, and can already prove I received them by virtue of what
verizon.net recorded to my incoming e-mail.
No more spin Dowd - put up the money and make it clear how the issue can be
decided - you agree that if verison recorded what I report above, then I am
right?
Otherwise you have been called! And the rest is some opinion you have, not
related to what you did, which interest me not in the least.
> You are the one who appointed Taylor as my witness, and then simply
> denigrate him for telling the truth.
I do remind you that I sent exactly both your messages as well as my reply
to them to TWO witnesses - not that they will be necessary to resolve this
issue.
> The last email I sent Phil Innes is verifiable by my AOL logs as having
> occured in November of 2005. That is of course, until *after* he
> accused me of sending him the emails, being a coward, etc.
> As Taylor noted that is what the apology is for:
>
> 1. You lied about me sending two emails on the date in question to you.
Ah 'the date' is Kingston's date. How elusive of you!
The two e-mails I received were received by me:
(1) the first on Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM
from jame...@aol.com <jame...@aol.com>
and which beganI have been ill the last few days, so I haven't been in the
ngs,
especially since I have an article to translate into German by next
week, a particularly difficult one of Grandmaster Janevski's on
paradoxes in the #2..
(2) after declining to open an attachment, this address Doct...@aol.com
<Doct...@aol.com> sent me a message
Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:31 PM
which began "
Here is the message you would not open.
I believe this is his address from the newsgroup. If not, please excuse
this interruption."
> 2. You then called me a coward, etc. for doing so.
>
> I have repeatedly noted that you don't seem to know a post from an
> email. I am not yet disabused of that notion.
>
> So you can continue to confuse the issue and pony up 5 grand for me to
> spend once I pass all tests of veracity, or you can apologize.
>
> Things are that simple. The email of Saturday never happened, except in
> your imagination. Now apologize for accusing someone of something they
> did not do. That is what a person of integrity would do; as the court
> here has already ruled against you repeatedly.
Whoever this writer is who does not write his own name ion this post, I
warrant the circumstances to be as I state them above, and if indeed there
is some bet which contradicts these facts, then let it be clearly stated how
it should be resolved, and how any monies should be transferred between us.
And there is your challenge! - do you accept it? If so, say how the wager is
to be completed.
Otherwise, even if for no money, I still attest that what I write is true,
and that those who say otherwise lie.
The issue of Taylor Kingston's involvement is a complication which I will
resolve by other than monetary means.
Phil Innes
Louis Blair
7 ... [Phil Innes] ... invited [Rynd-Dowd] to his home in
7 Vermont. ...
7 ...
7 Rynd-Dowd brought up the issue of Larry Tapper seeking
7 a summer vacation in Phil Innes' front yard, likely intending
7 to camp in a tent on the front lawn. ...
_
"... I have no desire to invade the sanctity of
Phil's rustic homestead, ..." - Larry Tapper
(22 Jun 2006 05:01:08 -0700)
_
Does Larry Parr have any quote of Larry Tapper seeking
a summer vacation in Phil Innes' front yard?
_
Does Larry Parr have any quote of "Rynd-Dowd" bringing
up the issue of Larry Tapper seeking a summer vacation
in Phil Innes' front yard?
_
Larry Parr wrote (14 Aug 2006 19:27:38 -0700):
7 ... the Tapper Man, who described his own area of abode
7 as Deliverance country. ...
_
Does Larry Parr have any quote of Larry Tapper describing
his own area of abode as Deliverance country?
_
Larry Parr wrote (14 Aug 2006 19:27:38 -0700):
7 ... The Tapper-man attempted to invite himself to Phil
7 Innes' place.
_
"... I did not, in fact, attempt to invite myself to
Phil Innes' place, ..." - Larry Tapper
(15 Aug 2006 06:31:09 -0700)
_
Does Larry Parr have any quote of Larry Tapper attempting
to invite himself to Phil Innes' place?
_
Larry Parr wrote (14 Aug 2006 19:27:38 -0700):
7 Phil declined the invitation to offer hospitality. He let the
7 Tapper-man know.
_
There is an aspect of this situation that Larry Parr fails
to mention:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:08:42 GMT
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote ...
> ... Yours truly offers to pay half of Rynd-Dowd's travel
> expenses ...
Dear Larry,
I actually responded to his initiative and accepted his
challenge to play a match, and extended it the whole
week. ...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
Now, according to jamesrynd, himself:
_
"... Larry Tapper wanted to play chess with [Phil
Innes]; I made a specific statement long before
[the Phil Innes] 'invitation' that I did not, repeat,
that is a negative, not, want to play chess with
[Phil Innes]. ..." - jamesrynd (14 Aug 2006
07:16:52 -0700)
_
Indeed, without much trouble, one can find:
_
"I would like to propose a grudge match between
me and Phil Innes." - Larry Tapper (20 Apr 2006
06:32:59 -0700)
_
Thus, it is natural to wonder: If Phil Innes wants to
"accept" the "challenge", why isn't he inviting the
person who made the challenge?
Chess One
What about the Verizon logs, which is my own server's record? Would you go
along with them?
If I accept this offer - how will we continue?
I say you should state if you accept the Verizon logs, then how the money
should be transferred.
I further say how come you to say that under both your adresses I received
mail - if you did not write them yourself - who did?
Furthermore, I will pursue Kingston by the outgoing Verizon logs - not that
he is as precese as you. He has just chosen your hearsay to determine I am a
liar. But on that basis and on what he himself claims he received, that is
sufficent.
He demanded proof as in a court. So be it!
> needed to answer, so here it is again - for probably the tenth time.
>
> I did not write the two emails.
Does AOL admit the possibility that someone else wrote them by using your
account names? - I mean - you may not have writen them, yet someone used
your account?
I don't think that is possible, is it?
While you ponder how to substantiate your boast, shall I post bothyour
mysterious messages? How embarrassing it would be for you if you really are
working on
"German by next
week, a particularly difficult one of Grandmaster Janevski's on
paradoxes in the #2.."
Are you in fact doing that?
As well as the second message which says you were unsure of my address -
though it is the same one you wrote some time ago, and the same one as
here - remember how you began, with an awkward first and third party
reference... and seem rather befuddled....
" Here is the message you would not open. I believe this is his address
from the newsgroup. If not, please excuse this interruption.This address is
the only one I use for email correspondence, and indeed have used for over a
decade. If you check your old mail, this will be the address from which I
have sent you emails in the past."
So you have bet me something, and I admit I do not know how AOL works,
except that Verizon would have my incoming mail record. Will you contest the
issue on this basis? And will you say how you would like to part with your
$5,000?
If you decline to take up my offer, I will take the initiative, and then
upon substantiating that the messages I received are from the addressess I
claimed, we shall then have another libel on our hands. Not Kingston's,
yours.
Liar's poker. You been called!
Phil Innes
jame...@aol.com
Chess One wrote:
> The two e-mails I received were received by me:
>
> (1) the first on Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM
>
> from jame...@aol.com <jame...@aol.com>
>
> and which beganI have been ill the last few days, so I haven't been in the
> ngs,
> especially since I have an article to translate into German by next
> week, a particularly difficult one of Grandmaster Janevski's on
> paradoxes in the #2..
This is the one under denial. The only one I denied. It is part of a
newsgroup post.
I am saying this because this is clear to everyone but yourself.
>
>
> (2) after declining to open an attachment, this address Doct...@aol.com
> <Doct...@aol.com> sent me a message
> Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:31 PM
>
> which began "
>
> Here is the message you would not open.
>
>
> I believe this is his address from the newsgroup. If not, please excuse
> this interruption."
This one is not in denial, and never has been. It was sent only in
response to your demands. I denied the Saturday message only, the lie
that started everything.
To summarize:
I had not emailed you since October of 2005.
On August 12th, your date, not Kingston, you indicated I sent you a
paranoid email.
You set up a court, etc. I only emailed you to tell you I did not send
the email you claim I did and I wanted to know who the friend was you
sent the email to.
Evidently on Monday you finally got Taylor to answer you - but it also
appears you sent nothing until Monday, while claiming to already have
sent it..
So the short statement is: I never sent you an email of any kind on
August 12th. I had not since October of 2005.
This is the statement you must refute.
Or apologize.
Please take the time to reread all the answers to you; I fear you do
not get it, and will, as in the David Kane issue, just stall to claim
that this not what I said, blah, blah.
It really doesn't matter. I showed you to be the liar multiple times,
and I see no one contradicting me except you. You've shot your own
meager reputation in the foot.
Chess One
"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1155682119.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "I would like to propose a grudge match between
> me and Phil Innes." - Larry Tapper (20 Apr 2006
> 06:32:59 -0700)
> _
> Thus, it is natural to wonder: If Phil Innes wants to
> "accept" the "challenge", why isn't he inviting the
> person who made the challenge?
Why does Louis Blair follow Tapper's proposition with his 'natural wonder'
that I would want to "accept" the "challenge" - whatever "accept" means that
accept does not. In other words, why begin, "thus" - since this seems to be
a proposition based on a false premise.
Phil Innes
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155686083.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> The two e-mails I received were received by me:
>>
>> (1) the first on Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM
>>
>> from jame...@aol.com <jame...@aol.com>
>>
>> and which beganI have been ill the last few days, so I haven't been in
>> the
>> ngs,
>> especially since I have an article to translate into German by next
>> week, a particularly difficult one of Grandmaster Janevski's on
>> paradoxes in the #2..
>
> This is the one under denial. The only one I denied. It is part of a
> newsgroup post.
GOTCHA!
In the very previous post, the same e-mail address jovially known as
rynd/dowd wrote "I did not write the two emails."
AND NOW
"The only one I denied"
We have changed a bit - but where's the bet? I mean, having written this guy
an invitation to come up here if he would like to, and received a couple
responses, which were denied on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:38 PM we now read
at Tuesday, August 15, 2006 7:54 PM We now read a few hours later, that that
is all wrong.
What Dr. Dowd seems to say is that since it is part of a newgroup post, I
never received a copy by e-mail. Which is a bit of a sly way of talking,
isn't it - especially since I did.
> I am saying this because this is clear to everyone but yourself.
Your explanation is as 'clear' as you put it, as your explanation of forging
Larry Parr's name - you actually admitted writing his name, but your way of
explaning it was not as a forgery.
But how come you to write just 3 hours before that "I did not write the two
emails". Is this your sophistry:-
That you did not write two of them, only one.
And to your thinking the 'other one' was not an e-mail since you wrote
it in a newsgroup, nevermind that you also sent me an e-mail copy?
But what I WROTE is that I received these two messages from you, as e-mails.
In suggesting that I did not receive both messages you, and Taylor Kingston
have suggested that I was lying - in fact taylor Kingston went as far as to
say so.
How will you send me the $5,000? Perhaps we should e-mail a third party, and
you can send cashiers cheque. Governor of Vermont would be okay, or you name
some public official - a justice of the peace?
You were never too specific on the terms of the bet, but I take it by your
explanation you no longer deny that I received two e-mails, and that you
sent both, and they were as I said they were, and you do not contest any of
those items individually or severally.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
> >
> >> Perhaps Neil should found a Phil Innes Anonmyous, for those who cannot
> >> resist answering Innes' nonsense and stupidity.
> >
> >
>
> Why? I don't have The Problem. You don't see me responding to Phil, even tho
> he tries to bait me by calling me shy. Yes, I can walk away any time I want.
Can you walk away from Parr and Sam Sloan? Or jr? Trolls are trolls,
after all.
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
g4 wrote:
> <jame...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1155565012.7...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >> Dear Larry,
> >>
> >> I actually responded to his initiative and accepted his challenge to play a
> >> match, and extended it the whole week.
> >
> >
> > Larry Tapper wanted to play chess with you; I made a specific statement
> > long before your "invitation" that I did not, repeat, that is a
> > negative, not, want to play chess with you.
> >
> > I am the one who demanded an apology for posting lies.
> >
> > You're right, g4. Get me off this Narrenschiff!
> >
>
> See? I know what I'm talking about.
>
> But for now we need to focus our attention on Vince Hart 'cause he seems
> to have fallen off the wagon again.
And Taylor Kingston. But he may be too far gone for help.
parrt...@cs.com
Dear Phil,
Rynd-Dowd argued that he/they "used" rather than
"forged" my name. That is an interesting defense:
One can cash a check by using another person's name
rather than by forging it. Something like that.
In your case Rynd-Dowd now seems/seem to be
saying that, well, yes, he/they did write as you
stated, but he/they did so in a posting rather than
dropping it into your mailbox, too. Something like that.
My view is that Rynd-Dowd, as you suggested,
is/are undergoing a crisis. Be kind to the man/men.
Off his/their meds? Please be gentle.
parrt...@cs.com
Dear Phil,
Rynd-Dowd argued that he/they "used" rather than
"forged" my name. That is an interesting defense:
One can cash a check by using another person's name
rather than by forging it. Something like that.
In your case Rynd-Dowd now seems/seem to be
saying that, well, yes, he/they did write as you
stated, but he/they did so in a posting rather than
dropping it into your mailbox, too. Something like that.
My view is that Rynd-Dowd, as you suggested,
is/are undergoing a crisis. Be kind to the man/men.
Off his/their meds? Please be gentle.
g4
">>
>> But for now we need to focus our attention on Vince Hart 'cause he seems
>> to have fallen off the wagon again.
>
> And Taylor Kingston. But he may be too far gone for help.
>
Seems like both Taylor and Vince are hopeless Philaholics.
g4
> after all.
>
Why? My topics / disagreements with the above end on their own accord,
whereas the discussions (if one may call them that) with Phil are often of the
variety : You did ... No I did not ... Yes you did ... No I didn't ... You did too ...
I did not ... Did too ... Prove it ... blah blah blah.
jame...@aol.com
Chess One wrote:
> You were never too specific on the terms of the bet, but I take it by your
> explanation you no longer deny that I received two e-mails, and that you
> sent both, and they were as I said they were, and you do not contest any of
> those items individually or severally.
Phil, this is crazy. I only emailed you in response to the accusation.
To try to clear things up. That is what I have said all along . There
are so many posts explaining this to you.....
You can't keep this sophomoric debate up with any seriousness. My story
has not changed. The debate always was that I did not send you a
cowardly, parnoid email on the 12th. The emails on the 13th were only
to respond to your accusations and find out who you had appointed as
jury - you evidently being both judge and prosecutor.
Perhaps Dr. Blair can help you, but so many people have tried to
explain this to you, its just ridiculous.
I regard those who cannot speak the truth as the cowards, and it shows.
You are scared to admit you could have made a mistake, or even possibly
lied.
Matt Nemmers
Discussing the discussion. Extremely Bachlerian; utterly boring.
RGCP.....same as it ever was.
Louis Blair
_
"I have been ill the last few days, so I haven't been
in the ngs, especially since I have an article to
translate into German by next week, a particularly
difficult one of Grandmaster Janevski's on paradoxes
in the #2..
At first I was very taken by what I read and your
invitation - even though I never asked for one. It
seemed sincere and genuine at first.
_
When I read this:
_
Since I seem to have accepted Dread Dowd's
challenge not for a few games but a week of
games, he himself backed off, and has never
made any contact - which is much as I
thought it would be. What you read here is
just noise Randy, people who say much about
themselves, and belittle others. These are
hardly people to voluntarily associate with, no?
Or has government service rendered you
completely insensible to conducting
conversation with other adults?
_
You still seem unable to understand that I never
asked to play chess against you, that was Larry
Tapper.
_
It showed me what a total jackass you were still,
despite your faux offer of hospitality. It makes me
very glad I didn't read the groups for a few days to
allow your true colors to show. Here you are,
'dissing' not just me but someone else in the same
paragraph. The way you lump people into categories
it is no wonder you are such a bigot." - jamesrynd
(12 Aug 2006 09:46:27 -0700)
_
_
"... You coward! You write me e-mails full of
paranoia from an address which cannot receive
21:15:03 GMT)
_
(Notice the plural: "emails")
_
"... I think you are confused. I have emailed you in
the past months ago from the address I have
always used for emails. That was a short
correspondence or two. It may be 6 months to a
year ago.
_
Perhaps you mean I write 'posts' from an address
which cannot receive a response?
_
This is because I do not care to receive emails from
you." - jamesrynd (12 Aug 2006 20:25:50 -0700)
_
_
"6 months? Nothing like kicking off a post with a
12:45 PM
_
copied two witnesses, one a friend of mine, and
one a friend of yours.
I meant the e-mail you sent me yesterday! ..."
- Phil Innes (Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:53:49 GMT)
_
_
"Please post a copy if you wish, as this never
happened. Header and other information would be
required for verification.
_
First you don't know who is posting and now you
don't even know who is emailing you? ..."
- jamesrynd (13 Aug 2006 14:29:23 -0700)
_
_
"I'll let our witnesses decide - fair?
...
You assert an imposter used the exact e-mail
address you currently use, and your message
contained a note about current illness, and so on?
... " - Phil Innes (Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:45:41 GMT)
_
_
"... we could take the Larry Parr $5,000 bet - I'll
be glad to put up 5 grand and answer the question
as to whether I emailed you on the date you claim,
or anywhere close to that. Winner walks away
with the other's money. We can then use his
favorite device, the Pauliegraf. :) Your travel
expense to the independent lab closest to me. ..."
- jamesrynd (13 Aug 2006 14:48:35 -0700)
_
_
"Dear Dr. D.
_
Thank you for sending me yet another e-mail
[actually 2 of them] with a receivable address this
time; ...
...
You seem to have denied earlier today that you
sent me any messages at all = but let's let that
pass, ..." - Phil Innes (Mon, 14 Aug 2006
00:18:06 GMT)
_
_
"... The only messages I did send were today from
my actual email address (as well as those I
mentioned from months ago ...) ..." - jamesrynd
(13 Aug 2006 17:59:48 -0700)
_
_
"I have received two emails from you recently ...
...
... You should tell the people here if you sent me
an email under the rynd name, and then one under
the dowd name [initials]- or if you did not! 1 email
or 2 emails?
...
In [the case of 1 email] you should be alert to the
fact that someone else seems to be using the
jame...@aol.com identity and referenced
"Grandmaster Janevski's on paradoxes in the #2.."
_
In their second message from a different e-mail
address which uses Doctor... beginning, a person
wrote as their last paragraph,
_
'Thank you for listening to this and please
use this address as sparingly as possible
as your presence in my mailbox is not
wanted unless absolutely necessary.'
_
Are you stating that you sent me one of these
messages and not the other? Which one did
you send?" - Phil Innes (Tue, 15 Aug 2006
14:12:49 GMT)
_
_
"... I have sent [the message] to [Kingston]! ..."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:12:04 GMT)
_
_
"... What you sent was a cut-and-paste job
from an rgcp post by Dowd in this thread,
dated 8/12/2006, 12:46 PM. There was
nothing to show that it was an e-mail sent
provided no e-mail header. You did not
send it to me as a forwarded e-mail -- you
merely put parts of Dowd's rgcp post into
Kingston (15 Aug 2006 09:48:03 -0700)
_
_
"I did not write the two emails.
The last email I sent Phil Innes is verifiable by
my AOL logs as having occured in November
of 2005. That is of course, until *after* he
accused me of sending him the emails, being
a coward, etc.
I have repeatedly noted that you don't seem to
know a post from an email. I am not yet
(15 Aug 2006 13:38:30 -0700)
_
_
"... I say I received one message from the same
address you use here, the rynd@aol, and one
from another aol account, Doct...@aol.com
<Doct...@aol.com> though actually two,
since the first contained an attachment which I
declined to open - then Doct...@aol.com
<Doct...@aol.com> sent another message
in plain text with no attachment.
I therefore challenge your assertion that I did
not receive these two messages, and can
already prove I received them by virtue of what
verizon.net recorded to my incoming e-mail.
No more spin Dowd - put up the money and
make it clear how the issue can be decided -
you agree that if verison recorded what I report
above, then I am right?
The two e-mails I received were received by me:
(1) the first on Saturday, August 12, 2006
12:45 PM from jame...@aol.com
<jame...@aol.com> and which began
I have been ill the last few days, so I
haven't been in the ngs, especially
since I have an article to translate into
German by next week, a particularly
difficult one of Grandmaster Janevski's
on paradoxes in the #2..
(2) after declining to open an attachment, this
address Doct...@aol.com
<Doct...@aol.com> sent me a message
Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:31 PM which
began
'Here is the message you would not open.
_
I believe this is his address from the
newsgroup. If not, please excuse this
..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:08:28 GMT)
_
_
"[(1)] is the one under denial. The only one I denied.
It is part of a newsgroup post.
I had not emailed you since October of 2005.
On August 12th, ... you indicated I sent you a
paranoid email.
_
... I only emailed you to tell you I did not send the
email you claim I did and I wanted to know who
the friend was you sent the email to.
So the short statement is: I never sent you an
email of any kind on August 12th. I had not since
October of 2005.
This is the statement you must refute.
Or apologize." - jamesrynd (15 Aug 2006
16:54:43 -0700)
_
_
"GOTCHA!
_
In the very previous post, the same e-mail address
jovially known as rynd/dowd wrote 'I did not write
_
AND NOW
_
'The only one I denied'
_
We have changed a bit - but where's the bet? ...
_
What Dr. Dowd seems to say is that since it is part
of a newgroup post, I never received a copy by e-mail.
Is this your sophistry:-
That you did not write two of them, only one. And to
your thinking the 'other one' was not an e-mail since
you wrote it in a newsgroup, nevermind that you also
sent me an e-mail copy?
But what I WROTE is that I received these two
messages from you, as e-mails.
... I take it by your explanation you no longer deny
that I received two e-mails, and that you sent both,
and they were as I said they were, and you do not
contest any of those items individually or severally."
_
_
"... I only emailed you in response to the accusation.
To try to clear things up. That is what I have said
all along . There are so many posts explaining this
to you.....
You can't keep this sophomoric debate up with any
seriousness. My story has not changed. The debate
always was that I did not send you a cowardly,
parnoid email on the 12th. The emails on the 13th
were only to respond to your accusations and find
out who you had appointed as jury - you evidently
(15 Aug 2006 19:07:59 -0700)
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro
Louis Blair wrote:
> A quick review of some of the statements in this thread:
Dr. Blair, or Louis if I may, you really need to take The Innes Pledge.
Louis Blair
7 ... Dear Phil,
7 ...
7 ... In your case Rynd-Dowd now seems/seem to be
7 saying that, well, yes, he/they did write as you stated,
7 but he/they did so in a posting rather than dropping it
7 into your mailbox, too. Something like that. ...
_
Phil Innes originally "stated":
_
"... You write me e-mails full of paranoia from
an address which cannot receive a response.
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 12 Aug 2006
21:15:03 GMT)
_
Notice the absence of any quote. Nevertheless, as
early as 12 Aug 2006 20:25:50 -0700, "jamesrynd"
indicated that he suspected that Phil Innes was
confusing a post with an email. (The clue was the
reference to "an address which cannot receive a
response.)
_
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:45:41 GMT, Phil Innes chose
not to follow a suggestion that he "post a copy" of the
"Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:45 PM" email that he
claimed to have received.
_
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:12:49 GMT, Phil Innes quoted
about seven words, and "jamesrynd" responded
(15 Aug 2006 13:38:30 -0700) by again referring to a
post/email confusion.
_
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:08:28 GMT, Phil Innes quoted
about forty words.
_
"... It is part of a newsgroup post. ..."
- "jamesrynd" (15 Aug 2006 16:54:43 -0700)
_
In short, "jamesrynd", has suspected all along that
Phil Innes was referring to a newsgroup post, and this
suspicion has become more definite as Phil Innes
has provided more information. All along and from the
beginning, "jamesrynd" has been denying that he
sent an email to Phil Innes on Saturday,
August 12, 2006.
Louis Blair
7 ... Rynd-Dowd argued that he/they "used" rather than
7 "forged" my name. That is an interesting defense:
7 One can cash a check by using another person's name
7 rather than by forging it. Something like that. ...
_
Can Larry Parr produce a quote of "Rynd-Dowd" writing
"something like": one can cash a check by using
another person's name rather than by forging it?
Louis Blair
7 ... Thus, it is natural to wonder: If Phil Innes wants
7 to "accept" the "challenge", why isn't he inviting the
7 person who made the challenge?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:16:00 GMT):
7 ... Why does Louis Blair follow Tapper's proposition
7 with his 'natural wonder' that I would want to "accept"
7 the "challenge" - whatever "accept" means that accept
7 does not. In other words, why begin, "thus" - since
7 this seems to be a proposition based on a false
7 premise.
_
There was quite a bit more than the Tapper quote
above my question. In particular, Phil Innes snipped
this key reproduction:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:08:42 GMT
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote ...
> ... Yours truly offers to pay half of Rynd-Dowd's travel
> expenses ...
Dear Larry,
I actually responded to his initiative and accepted his
challenge to play a match, and extended it the whole
week. ...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
Now, according to jamesrynd, himself:
_
"... I never asked to play chess against [Phil Innes],
that was Larry Tapper. ..." - jamesrynd
(12 Aug 2006 09:46:27 -0700)
_
Indeed, without much trouble, one can find:
_
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1155691066....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> PLEASE BE GENTLE
>
> Dear Phil,
>
> Rynd-Dowd argued that he/they "used" rather than
> "forged" my name. That is an interesting defense:
> One can cash a check by using another person's name
> rather than by forging it. Something like that.
>
> In your case Rynd-Dowd now seems/seem to be
> saying that, well, yes, he/they did write as you
> stated, but he/they did so in a posting rather than
> dropping it into your mailbox, too. Something like that.
A vous,
Mais pas tant de rouscaille :)
I was thinking earlier that the Niemand's of our time are much like Dickens'
Nimo - he didn't come to a good end, no, and semi-sacrificed himself for the
woman, and such stuff as is reputation : neither did that long suit do other
than destroy people's characters who obsessively speculated on their
investment in the result.
> My view is that Rynd-Dowd, as you suggested,
> is/are undergoing a crisis. Be kind to the man/men.
> Off his/their meds? Please be gentle.
But of course he is right and I am wrong, per eundem. And that is the best
joke I've made in an age, and who will ever distinguish it more than the
more direct, ante tubam trepidat?
Weather better here - 80 and dry, stacked a cord of wood yesterday, which
hardly hurt at all, until this morning. Un autre a demain, fausse tortue
avaler des couleuvres.
Phil
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155694079.7...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> You were never too specific on the terms of the bet, but I take it by
>> your
>> explanation you no longer deny that I received two e-mails, and that you
>> sent both, and they were as I said they were, and you do not contest any
>> of
>> those items individually or severally.
>
> Phil, this is crazy. I only emailed you in response to the accusation.
its okay to stop you know
> To try to clear things up. That is what I have said all along . There
> are so many posts explaining this to you.....
i am not much interested in having things explained to which i never
admitted curiosity, since so often that goes hand in hand with a certain
insistance of a point of view
> You can't keep this sophomoric debate up with any seriousness. My story
> has not changed. The debate always was that I did not send you a
> cowardly, parnoid email on the 12th. The emails on the 13th were only
> to respond to your accusations and find out who you had appointed as
> jury - you evidently being both judge and prosecutor.
i specifically asked the witnesses to do nothing - not speculate, believe
anything, act on the information, inveigle, inquire, investigate, publicise,
or sing the portugese national anthem
> Perhaps Dr. Blair can help you, but so many people have tried to
> explain this to you, its just ridiculous.
>
> I regard those who cannot speak the truth as the cowards, and it shows.
> You are scared to admit you could have made a mistake, or even possibly
> lied.
the truth i seem accused of portraying so it seems, is not the one i myself
wrote of, which is the completely simple fact that i received a couple of
e-mail messages from you
none of this crazy stuff which is other than the work of people who are
'helping' - but i let that pass, since it is more subtle, and requires more
subtle language to understand, such as both the french and latin posted in
response to larry parr's note here some moments ago, and what does it matter
if they do not understand it? since they would not understand it in english
either, and instead become confused and play word games, rather than
recognise a more universal emotion of the heart?
in no longer seems necessary to dispute the fact of the two e-mails - i am
calm, and should you like to have some last word, go ahead, or else let this
be it
phil
Chess One
newcaster - i will pass over the 'november initiative', and whatever
contents it may have had if indeed it existed without inviting you to
specualte, as well as other private memorandum, since after all, why would
someone with any nous at all after reading this mess of words continue to
agitate and conflate it, as if to denigrate one party - especially if they
have read what is represented to be the truth by other parties who 'speak'
for them? but are rather implausibly speakers of the whole truth, or of a
respectful context?
perhaps you should select only what is specifically not intended by any
writer, and then represent that to other people as if it was their intent,
despite any evidence you have, as you did when forwarding false-sloan
messages
did you ever deny you did so? or did you merely excuse yourself, as if you
thought [ROFL] that your action would have no effect
did you identify to the recipients that they were false-sloans?
was the result of your action the destruction of half-decent work, rather
than allowing your own critical faculties and knowledge to supplement the
other half, as an intelligent amendment of facts?
these are the avoided instances of your own care for truth telling while
attempting to livie the lives of others
in a word, nihilistic.
so if you are a sufficiently brave soul to address these issues, perhaps
then you will understand something more about the motivational side of
public 'performances'?
Phil Innes
"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1155699156....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jame...@aol.com
The truth is not the one he wrote of, it is instead the one he wrote,
which is the simple fact that -Mon Dieu!! - he received messages, but
no affair of the heart, which displeased him greatly, as he sat,
comfortably numb in the presence of Syd Barrett. When wrong, deny/admit
and accuse, much in the vein of tripe negative, I invented,
mathematicians don't know math. Shakespeare his thing, the pole not the
man.
None of this is helping - one thing then another, he the diss
ingenuous, loving the "diss" and then, such correspondents would have
to understand the genuflect - he rather doubts they can. Torri,
Laehetti, Cavallo! Word games! How inferior to the game of the brain
his brain - the brain the brainiac - right because he is, thinking
because you are not.
The judge he was - too close to Jew for his liking, jury, prosecution,
all appointed by him, empowered to do nothing, Brilliant! Linear time -
for heathens like Kingston and gasp! Brennen, no Brennan, no Bruennen,
ach weh, keine Brunhilde hat er ausser was er in seiner hand hat.
J'accuse! non, tu accuse! Where are the shoes? No, that rhymes with,
please...
Disspute- not necessary, wrongness, sanity, all not part of l'adoration
des Oris Mages, which he am, such language not understood by disspute,
but rather by twisting, turning -admit! ha! clamness is my name, call
Sam Ismail, serve me on the half-shell. Eisbein mit Schlagsahne. Il la
avoir une crise de foie!!!!!!!! November 5, we burn the pope,which Paul
was it? Five, five, five. Hmm Innes also five, Innes found Fawkes in
the basement, didn't know who was living there, Sloan bunking with die
kleine Susanne, Banjo on his knee.
Indeed, this be it - the words of a liar dominate his heart, through to
his soul, and Huech! - what know he except what he must attack - a vos
souhaits it must be, and Kingston doesn't understand, he knows German,
he speaks that to the horse, ney, the other end (me!), never ending,
ever fearful, Halie Selassie, Jah Rastfari. Od dob sveho jedina ze
vsech....
Cassandra complex, he has. Correct but not believed! Make prediction
and then make true, in head, deflect, away, he is right, how many
fingers am I holding up? No! No!
When he played chess against Orwell, G. assigned all quotation rights
to PI in perpetuity - the game was almost done, Orwell proclaimed him.
Now beating off against Rybka by turning off opening book, rating 3006
with, again genius, again the world is amazed, thank you please.
He will take that as apology, taiking his aikles wit him.
Chess One
others, for once in his life he should take responsibility for his rarely
seen initiative - it should be Brennans-Way!
/My/ pledge is that you have nothing intelligent to say about chess or the
chess scene, go away! Even if you reduced to talking about the ridiculous
KID, or how to bust the Fischer bust of the KG, or even if you could spare
yourself the trouble to not whine about what others do to children which is
unlikable to the extent that as many leave chess each year as are recruited
to it, but join in a conversation of how it may be obviated.
Otherwise you might accidentally find yourself impersonating people who
struggle for some current context in their lives [nevermind in chess] via
google and AOL, for instance, and of writing 5 years of spite including the
pathetic recent one of wanting to hurt my dog, and being reduced to cheering
your own very minor achievements in chess writing by advertising the mostly
laughable, and entirely internally dividied organisation, the CJA awards, in
a Shakespeare newsgroup. A set of awards never even reported by my chess
news group.
All in the spirit of utter destructive nihilistic malice - in short a
snash - abuse, impertinence and insolence [NED 1919]
Join brennan's Lybrayun's group, for god's sake, and go someplace where you
can eat each other souls, what is left of them, cheered on by this vile
fruitcake..
Phil Innes
"Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper, University of Brattleboro" <Spam...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:1155699778.3...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...