"The Historian" wrote in message
...

I knew P Innes would come through with a new one:

45. The action of members of the USCF EB asking for the resignation of
another board member weren't proper, and The New York Times of the
suit has been of poor quality. So the whole matter is Mcarthyism, and
we should reject the Mottershead report.

But what happens if the board did not tell the truth about cooperating with
lawyers and insurance? Then will this fatuous fool have no further curiosity
than Prosecutor Murray or Investigator Spinrad?

Thus far they have contrived to bring 44 previous reasons why only one thing
should be considered, doubting nothing of its veracity. Dammit - they might
as well write for the Times itself!

What Neil Brennan knows about McCarthyite technique is as unknown as his
knowledge of any subject. What Brennan /does/ is to deploy that technique of
castigating others by negative aspersions.

This is the quintessential difference between an idiot and abusenik, though,
as in chess itself, sometimes two truly stupid factors combine to render
one's game over.

In this instance, it is very clear-cut - either Susan Polgar lied to me
today, or the board and its hacks did to the New York Times yesterday.

Let us all agree the penalty for such lies, no matter who are the liars. But
if Susan Polgar is proven correct in this instance, then... why did others
act as they did?

Therefore, by the inane logic of the celebrants he to add to this list,
item #47, might mention that if you are caught openly lying, then this has
utterly no consequence since; what are facts and decency to do with any of
this vile public rubbishing?

And we already know the answer to that one; nothing whatever.

Phil Innes