Matt Nemmers wrote:
The Historian wrote:

You are assuming, Matt, that the people who argue on here don't really
mean what they write.

How do you get that out of my post, Neil?

You are assuming people will be willing to set aside strongly-held
positions in order to toss some plastic pieces around.

Sloan was the winner long before he pushed his g
pawn, simply by getting Bill Brock to 'overlook' his true nature.

And that would be....?

When was the last time you willing shared space with a "kiddie-f*cker",
Matt?

I don't see why we need to set aside right and wrong for the sake of a
little glorified skittles.

Dr. Freud, I think you're reading between the lines a bit much here.


When was the last time you willing shared space with a "kiddie-f*cker",
Matt?

Neil Brennen vs. Louis Blair:
The Historian is 1572 and The Blair-bot is 1611; another good match-up.

I have a tremendous respect for Dr. Blair's chess history writing (I
wish there were more of it) and rather less respect for his postings
here; I doubt either of us have any time for chess play, but I would
have no objection to playing him.

Might be an interesting game.

It very well may be. Dr. Blair, you interested?