"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:16:18 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


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?

No, as usual Phil, nobody gets it but you.

Really? I wouldn't say that, but if you mean the group clamoring here - that
is hardly a representative group, and many can't even write their own names.

But if I really am the only person talking about the rule of law, and you
are equating prospective depositions, apparently illegally obtained by a
contractor who the previous day was criticised by the person[s] now accused,
and for you such 'evidence' equals proof, as if /you/ were the rule of law -
then so be it.

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?

No, as usual Phil, you've evidently read but a smattering of what's
been posted.

Let me take that as another 'pass' to a direct question - though I note all
you write in these threads is /judgemental/.

Like another person here who wanted me to question Truong but couldn't
answer a question himself, when the direct question of Mike Murray's own
engagement with this subject arises, the answer, given at bottom, is "You're
the mind reader, Phil. You tell us"

And its my shrewd guess which Mike Murray "can't understand"

When asked below in another direct question why Mike Murray makes yet
another false paraphrase of what I said - the answer is: "Why bother? Based
on some of your past behavior, you'd probably deny you wrote it."

Why bother even pretending this is any interest who the false-Sloan is?
That's a rhetorical statement. Let's hope we don't wind up with rhetorical
justice.

Phil Innes

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?

As usual, Phil, nobody has to kid you. You're self sufficient in that
respect.

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!

Judging you as a crackpot is a much easier task than identifying the
fake(s). We have as evidence the whole corpus of your pretentious,
poorly written, strangely punctuated and sloppy, typo-ridden, confused
postings to this news group. And every now and then, a few choice
tidbits from other groups. Your legacy, as it were.

Just ask yourself this, Phil: why do you think so many posters make
fun of you and make you the butt of jokes? Is it because they take
you seriously and are threatened by your incisive insight? OR is
it......... Satan?

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

So, you've "judged" the evidence already, have you Phil, and found it
wanting? What you've read gives precious little indication you've
read any of it. Maybe you couldn't understand it.

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!

Why bother? Based on some of your past behavior, you'd probably deny
you wrote it.

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!

Oh, I understood you thought it was the "reproter" of the evidence
whose motive was important, Phil. That's why I considered your
remarks to be extra stupid, even for you. When the USCF hires its
credentialed subject matter expert, he'll be able to evaluate the
material without doing any psychological profile of Mottershead.

How is requesting due process "denying any pause for due process" ?
Oh, maybe you really meant, "stumble around, waiting for Phil to
stylistically identify the perp(s)".

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

I've said why several times, Phil. But, OK, one more time: because
so much of what you're writing doesn't make sense. Clear enough?

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

You're the mind reader, Phil. You tell us.