While not quite understanding why these 2 characters are discussing
something from a humanities newsgroup in a chess one, nor any intelligence
either bring to either subject, I am also not understanding what lie I am
accused of.

Mr Kennedy seems to think that unless I have some need to prove something to
him, then it is untrue. Mr Brennen seems not to think at all.

Phil Innes

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

The Historian wrote:

Uh, I hadn't said a thing about the painting in this thread at the time
Mr. Innes posted his drivel. Mr. Innes is correcting the owner of the
website, a Marlovian nutcase named John Baker.


This text has been quoted here many times, and in each
of these cases it has been another Innesian attack on
Neil Brennen, so why are the words of someone else
being used to "summon" Mr. Innes' ire against The
Historian? Why does Innes lash out against you while
in the middle of correcting someone else? Is it another
case of "A WOUND SO DEEP", or was Innes himself
confused, perhaps?


A curious coincidence is that Mr. Baker, like Mr. Innes, has claimed a
title he didn't have. In Baker's case, it was a doctorate from Florida
State University. In the case of Mr. Innes, it's a 2450 rating and a
"nearly an IM" title.


IM Innes repeatedly notes that he never lied about his
chessic titles *here*, in the chess newsgroups, so his
lie "doesn't count". It is as though he actually believes
a man can be truthful in one space, while being a
baldfaced liar in another, seperate space, with no
"bleeding" between the two. A strange fellow, this IM.
IMO, a liar is a liar, no matter where he is at the moment.
BUT...this was a very small lie, possibly even a mere
exaggeration, IF Mr. Innes truly is a strong player, which
is still in doubt. The moreso since his closest "allies",
such as Mr. Parr, seem to prefer backing Sam Sloan
to IM Innes in any grudge matches.

-- help bot