I wrote (9 Jun 2006 06:51:10 -0700):
While looking at that old Innes-Hart-Kane-Kingston-Brennen
discussion, I came across part that deserves separate
attention:
_
"... I am not interested in the cut and deplore routine.
If you have something to say to standards of public
decency to children and women, David, write them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:40:30 GMT)
_
_
_
"...
I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing.
_
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup,
about 'standards of public decency to children
and women'. ..." - David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006
16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
_
"...
I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
_
I am not your boy! I already wrote a basis for an
approach - but no one seems actually interested
enough in the subject to engage it. ..." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
_
"It appears Mr. Innes is talking to himself again.
And what's more, he's taking offense at his own
words. How long until he accuses himself of
self-stalking?" - Neil Brennen (4 Apr 2006
16:53:19 -0700)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:28:04 GMT):
... what sort of person are you with thesemindless repetitions? ...
_
I wrote (9 Jun 2006 20:24:02 -0700):
The sort who thinks that it is worthwhile to remember some
incidents and describe them accurately.

_
I wrote (Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:08:18 GMT):

Don't just repeat it Louis, see if you can understand what it
means ...

_
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT, did Phil Innes understand
the meaning of what he quoted?