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 ;(
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be a
7 specific example. He, of course, prefers not to.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 I win! He has asked me to identify what he snipped - and
7 though I wrote whay he snipped, and then wrote that he
7 would ask me to be specific about his snip,
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 Nonsense. I am asking Phil Innes to be specific about
7 his charges against the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis snipped not my charges, but what USCF members
7 said at Nolandland,

_
Phil Innes is now accusing me of snipping something that
was not there. The Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT Phil
Innes note did not contain "what USCF members said at
Nolandland". Phil Innes is probably thinking of his Wed,
13 Dec 2006 15:52:36 GMT note that he posted in another
thread ("these bastions of free expression"). THAT note
DID contain a Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm quote of Donna
Alarie (part of a reaction to a Beatriz Marinello note), and a
Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:31 pm quote of Timothy Sawmiller (part
of a reaction to a Herbert Vaughn note). I dealt with those
quotes in my notes in THAT thread. Neither quote expressed
disapproval of any specific action by the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 and now says this its nonsense,

_
I have used "nonsense" in connection with the Phil Innes
pretense of describing what I wrote.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 while repeating his request to identify what he snipped.

_
I am not requesting Phil Innes to identify what I snipped.
I already know what I snipped.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Of course what Louis might mean [??] is that he can't
7 relate my 'charges', to use his term, to anything else
7 because he snipped the reference which would make
7 the question unnecesssary.

_
Mentioning USCF (and Donna Alarie and Timothy Sawmiller
quotes) does not identify specific examples of moderator
behavior to which Phil Innes objects. Neither quote
expressed disapproval of any specific action by the
moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Can Louis Blair quote my use of the word 'charges'?

_
I did not claim that Phil Innes used the word, "charges".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 he concludes I prefer not to be 'specific' - though maybe
7 he means I will not repost the specific text that he cut?
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 No. I see nothing that I would call specific in any of the
7 notes mentioned above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Once again Louis thinks its worth writing to this
7 newsgroup to say he ignores what he cut, to state that
7 he doesn't see anything specific in what he chose to
7 leave in.

_
Nonsense again. I referred to the NOTES mentioned
above, not the QUOTES mentioned above. In those
NOTES (the Phil Innes notes dated by Google as
Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT, Thu, 14 Dec 2006
13:21:30 GMT, and Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT),
I saw nothing that identified specific examples of
moderator behavior to which Phil Innes objects.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 I wonder what his decision basis for cutting it was in
7 the first place!?? Since that is the only material that
7 he seems interested in, while plainly ignoring uncut
7 material.
7
7 Is this a sort of inverse editing of content? Perhaps
7 Captain Kingston-ite could comment?

_
I cut such things as the Phil Innes comments on GM
production that were not helpful as far as identifying
specific examples of moderator behavior to which Phil
Innes objects (and not helpful identifying the supposed
"less-than-honest reporting about Tanner").

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Anyway, only I can do it, whatever the it is. ...
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 "Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers
7 to be a specific example." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
7 11:20:00 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 The specific example[s] in question are the ones cut
7 by Louis Blair. The reason to post them in the first place
7 was to provide specific examples. Now Louis Blair falsely
7 says that only I can identify them, but after posting them
7 anyone could. In fact Louis Blair has already identified
7 them because he was the one who chsoe to cut them!
7
7 Our Louis is like one of those evil-geniuses in a Superman
7 movie, waving the Kingston-ite in front of us, by asking
7 questions about what he himself dissapeared!

_
Mentioning USCF (and Donna Alarie and Timothy Sawmiller
quotes) does not identify specific examples of moderator
behavior to which Phil Innes objects. Neither quote
expressed disapproval of any specific action by the
moderator.

_
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? ...
_
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,
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 Nonsense. I quoted the text that I was asking about. See
7 above, where it is quoted again.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 ... The text that mentioned USCF was cut.
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 One instance of Phil Innes mentioning USCF is reproduced
7 above (and has been reproduced in my previous notes in
7 this exchange). In any event, mentioning USCF does not
7 tell us what "reporting about Tanner", Phil Innes was writing
7 about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis pretends to be honest by saying one instance is
7 'reproduced' above, and maybe if someone or other can
7 'reproduce' the other instance, the one he now questions,
7 then he would be happy?

_
Mentioning USCF does not identify the "reporting about
Tanner" that Phil Innes was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 I note that is not a quote!

_
It is a quote from the Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT
note of Phil Innes. See above or check google records.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 But it is also not an inquiry. Neither is it a dispute. It is
7 a question that could be resolved by actually looking at
7 USCF's website thereby removing the need to ask
7 questions as if to doubt the source. Which is pretty
7 much what I wrote before.

_
I HAVE looked at USCF's website and do not know what
supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner" Phil
Innes was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Therefore we learn two things - one, Louis insists it is
7 somewhere above, though I pointedly said it was cut, and
7 two, he has requoted the wrong text which quite obviously
7 he can't understand, since as I wrote above - it's the wrong
7 text.
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 What I wrote:
7
7 "I quoted the text that I was asking about."
7 - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800)
7
7 That statement is true.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis Blair does not deny that he cut the text which
7 he knows contains the reference he now asks me for,
7 since he made a SPECIFIC decision to cut that
7 material himself, but continues to say like a demented
7 Danny Kaye that in the text he left uncut the reference
7 he wants is not in it!
7
7 Furthermore, even though I wrote that his text is the wrong
7 text, he continues to blandly assert that the reference is
7 not in the wrong text, while not denying that he himself cut
7 it from 'the right text.'

_
I see nothing that I would call specific (about examples of
the moderator behavior to which Phil Innes objects or about
the identification of the supposedly "less-than-honest
reporting about Tanner") in any of the Phil Innes notes
with google dates Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT, Thu,
14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT, Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT,
and Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT. (That sentence refers
to BOTH cut and uncut material.)

_
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.
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does
7 not want to be specific about this matter.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Be specific about what matter?
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does not
7 want to specifically identify the "reporting about Tanner"
7 that he was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 What specificity is being inquired about that is not already
7 written but excised in the cut text?

_
Mentioning USCF does not identify the "reporting about
Tanner" that Phil Innes was writing about. Phil Innes could
be more specific by quoting the first few words of the
supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner"
or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 It is of course not surprising that Louis Blair will cut
7 something, not deny he cut it, then continue to ask
7 others to put it back!

_
At the beginning of EVERY note that I have posted in
this exchange, I have quoted Phil Innes referring to "the
USCF site". I am not asking Phil Innes to put that back.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 And furthermore, that he would not go look himself,
7 since surely if I could it, he could.

_
I HAVE looked and found nothing to support the Phil
Innes moderator and reporting criticism.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 What what exactly he wants to know about the
7 reporting of Tanner specifically, he doesn't mention.

_
"I am ... seeking a specific identification of
the supposed 'less-than-honest reporting
about Tanner'." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
13:19:22 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Where the backside of the moon is?
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 No. See above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis must think that ' does not want to specifically identify
7 the "reporting about Tanner" ' is a question, or that it can be
7 answered. Whatever I wrote before is not specific enough
7 for him, since he now asks for something else, but what?

_
Phil Innes could be more specific by quoting the first few
words of the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner" or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Be specific about if Louis should think about where it
7 could be,
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be
7 "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 And only Phil Innes did.

_
Mentioning USCF does not tell us what "reporting about
Tanner", Phil Innes was writing about. Phil Innes could
be more specific by quoting the first few words of the
supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner"
or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 or even that the text that was cut, which ipso facto was
7 a specific to itself, or if asking some or all these questions
7 is nothing I want to be specific about [again].
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 Mentioning USCF does not tell us what "reporting about
7 Tanner", Phil Innes was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Mentioning my "reporting about Tanner" does not tell me
7 what Louis Blair is asking.

_
"I am ... seeking a specific identification of
the supposed 'less-than-honest reporting
about Tanner'." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
13:19:22 -0800)
_
Phil Innes could be more specific by quoting the first few
words of the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner" or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Is Louis Blair still claiming he is specific about any of
7 those, or maybe something else? Something lost, something
7 blue, something in Nottingham, or something to do with 'matter'?
7
7 There is a lot of money riding on if he feels compelled to answer.
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 I am seeking identification of specific examples of the moderator
7 behavior to which Phil Innes objects. I am also seeking a specific
7 identification of the supposed "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis cut reactions to the moderator,

_
Phil Innes is accusing me of cutting something that was
not there. The Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT Phil
Innes note did not contain "reactions to the moderator"
other than the comments of Phil Innes himself that I
DID quote. Phil Innes is probably thinking of his Wed,
13 Dec 2006 15:52:36 GMT note that he posted in another
thread ("these bastions of free expression"). THAT note
DID contain a Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm quote of Donna
Alarie (part of a reaction to a Beatriz Marinello note), and a
Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:31 pm quote of Timothy Sawmiller (part
of a reaction to a Herbert Vaughn note). I dealt with those
quotes in my notes in THAT thread. Neither Beatriz
Marinello nor Herbert Vaughn is the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 is he asking for verbatim moderator text?

_
"I am seeking identification of specific examples
of the moderator behavior to which Phil Innes
objects." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Is he asking because he can't view them himself?

_
I have viewed lots of moderator text, but only Phil Innes
can identify the moderator text to which he objects.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Or is he asking because he doubts why members
7 reacted as he did?

_
Again, Donna Alarie and Timothy Sawmiller were reacting
to notes of Beatriz Marinello and Herbert Vaughn
(respectively). Neither Beatriz Marinello nor Herbert
Vaughn is the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 And what does 'seeking identification' actually mean?

_
"If Phil Innes has trouble with ordinary words
in English he should consult a dictionary."
- Louis Blair (14 Mar 2006 12:25:52 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 So when Louis Blair subtracts what I already wrote from
7 what he wants to know, I presume he will then share
7 whatever still puzzles him in clear-text, so to speak,
7 as well as stating why he wants someone else to provide
7 him with that information, especially since he seems in
7 so much private doubt of its veracity.
7
7 It is not surprising that after several thousand words
7 already, Louis Blair has not said why he is asking
7 anyone anything. ...

_
I think public attacks should be accompanied by specifics.
Phil Innes wouldn't want us to think that he was being
deliberately vague, would he?