"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
7 abuse of speech.
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
7 with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
7 the examples?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phil Innes