"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:38:04 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

what you need to get into your head, Mike, is that you are not a judge,

Being well aware of that fact, I'm calling for the information already
gathered to be presented to one qualified to recommend invoking the
"judge".

BTW, Phil, that certainly ain't you.

neither do i pretend to be !- but the point is that YOU act like one! get
it?

and
would even be an eligible jury member, since your attitude is prescriptive
to presume guilt, not innocence, and furthermore you have not displayed
the
slighest interest in who the fake is,

To the contrary. I have an intense interest in determining the fake.

Really? by virtue of what that you have written? Aren't you come to this a
bit late?

It's you who insists on blowing smoke and prattling about ignoring
evidence

your entire behavior belies what you say - so who are you kidding?

already gathered so that we can participate in your crackpot
search for the "real" fake.

another prescription from the guy who says he wants to know ... he doesn't
want to know anything! he wants to judge!

Evidence has been gathered.

i assume you have read a louis blair post. not even his mother could keep a
straight face with that selected stuff, which is not evidence of anything
anyone meant - it is a collation of stuff deliberately cobled together sans
any context

I eagerly await the judgment of the
credentialed expert the USCF has promised to appoint to review this
evidence. Never once have I identified someone as the proven fake.
You're the one bleating virtually indecipherable nonsense about first
doing more searching.

i see you are not quoting my bleating - what an arse you are!

you just sound like someone impatient to nail someone ... some particular
one! and you object to any pause for due process while pretending you have
an open mind. you even write that you don't think motive is important -
ROFL - not quite understanding that I mean the reproter of the evidence, and
your own!

If the expert says, "nope, not good enough to proceed", then we don't.
If the expert says, "looks conclusive", then the USCF should take some
sort of action. That you would call this a "kangaroo court" speaks
only to your confused and befuddled state of mind.

so speaks honest mike, who has heard of some 'evidence', and not of any
other, and says here reserving judgement is 'befuddlement' to his anxious
mind, which is so urgent to knock out something i am saying! though he can't
say why

he would rather rubbish people who ask him why he is so hot! and why is he?
)

phil innes


and continue to mount a kangaroo court
like even the SU would need to gloss


phil innes