"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:40:06 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


Mike Murray's idea of control was to eliminate 25 objections to both his
own
and rule-of-law activities he conducted here. As in another current case
floundering around these newsgroups, there were not weighted, but
rubbished
and entirely dismissed.

You confuse satire with control. The former attempts to convince, the
latter to coerce. Would you carp about a caricature because it makes
the chin too big and the forehead bulge too much?

Mike, because you don't ask real questions, you don't get serious answers.
It just one of those rhetorical techniques to dissuade an issue, by
pre-emptive dissmissal of it.

All I really wanted to know, as Larry Parr wanted to know on this other
issue, is what /weight/ each factor has - and since we deal with a legal
case, what weight in law? I could narry find anyone to agree that was the
topic.

To say none, satirically or not, is not to admit that the law /does/ weight
evidence, all of it. If that is not the issue, and its just a usenet survey
of 'enthusiasts' - my reservation in 'answering points' is that what is
really caricatured is the usenet process of 'trying' someone, with
predominantly one-sided depositions, by those who also act as judge and
jury.

The other side of this issue is really contested elsewhere, in a courtroom.
Its absense here is only relevant to usenet, not any real factors of
whodunnit?

As you may or may not know, I have some 'evidence' too, but haven't
presented it here, since this is not the proper forum.

(Yeah, I guess you
might.)


Without irony he neverthless accuses me of wanting
to control everything.

I pointed out a number of your weak points and failings, Phil, but I
can't recall accusing you of "wanting to control everything". Can you
refresh my memory with a cite?

No. When I wrote about standards for USCF 22 months ago, people couldn't
'remember' anything either. This remembering was a euphemism for 'not
agree'. When I re-presented the premise for standards, no-one discussed
them. You see, sometimes questions and requests for information are not put
forward so that anything can happen, but to prevaricate on issues!

Then after successive scandalising of every standard of normal behavior by a
board member, it is now a big issue. That would be worth talking about
here - since public opinion is important in that issue, since it effects the
chess public!

The questions of standards is not one anyone can win, and actually requires
public consent [if we like things the way they are, nothing will change] to
promote any, and indeed, to avert the same thing happening next year...

Phil Innes