"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:11:19 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

The most charitable response to your post is that it indicates you
haven't yet read Brian Mottershead's analysis. Its implications
weren't based speculation about motive, "philological" analysis or the
other stuff about which you blather,

I am sorry, but you are merely rude - since I //never// said he had a
philological thought in his head.

I was comparing *his* presentation of what he considered evidence with
*yours*. Your posts dwelled at length on matters of motivation and
stylistic analysis, which you at one point called "philological
content", of the fake posts,.

that is not entirely true, Mike, you cut the prologue, right?

spare me further 'reason' by analogy, which is usually infamous.

Without analogy, how do you suppose one determines the fitness of
logical premises to the real world? Just for grins, do a Google on
"analogy in legal reasoning" before you embarrass yourself further.

I see - so this is already legal 'reasoning' rather than other kinds. Ok -
understand your perspective.

I did not say that Motterhead's speculations were about motive, I said /I/
wondered what motive he had.

And this little aside was just a matter of disinterested curiosity?
Oh, puleeze.

Puleeze what? If you have a point, get on your hind legs and say it. You
already cheated by cutting the top off to your presumed own orinetation.
Puleeze! spare me your agony!?

you get slanderous postal mail signed by "Sam Sloan" but from an Omaha
address, it's still identity theft.

Well, sure it is! What are you hot about now? - are you thinking that I am
in denial about the false-Sloan? Dammit - i challenged that person a lot
more than you [or anyone else!] did this past year!

Just last post, you were saying it was not identity theft but parody
or lampoon!

What the fake wrote here is obvious parody and lampoon - what you decided to
write is as if 'someone googled' it and so on. You areguing with me, or with
your with self? BTW: I did not say it was 'not identity theft' since any
bloody fool could look at the headers here and see it was different from
Sloan's posting header.

that is what I wrote - and you dare not quote it twice, but still argue, as
if,

as if i wrote something else. pretty strong spinning!

Are you really seriously saying //you// can't tell a false-Sloan from the
real one, without looking at any header?

Not in all cases, no. I don't think you could either. And we both
are regular posters who have been following these chess newsgroups for
years.

You just have to wait a few days for a more 'official' announcement )

Is that official or officious?

Sober!

How angry would you still feel if someone were pulling your strings? I
should doubt you are immune. So take a breath, fire back at me, not today,
tomorrow.

Your responses are not so forceful that one need's a good night's
sleep to calm down and craft a response, Phil. I'm exasperated that
you're trying to obscure the issue by spewing so much ink.

OK, carry on, bucko.

But you seem to cut the questions which engage why you are so hot and
anxious to deal with this situation. So be hot on your ownsome

IMO, all that's needed is for AOL and other relevant ISPs to divulge
their electronic records and for someone with appropriate credentials
to correlate this information with the stuff gathered at the USCF.
Then, other appropriate people can judge whether the theoretical
possibility of someone hacking or faking these electronic footprints
is so strong that there's still no preponderance of evidence.

My emotional state, Brian's emotional state, your emotional state,
Lafferty's intentions, etc., are irrelevant.

People's emotional states do not reflect their motivations? ROFL Nor are any
guide to what they write, and what they SNIP. )

Anyway, you made your bed, and insist on sleeping in it - what else can you
do know?

Phil Innes