"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 12:24 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

...



On Feb 3, 11:54 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

...

On Feb 3, 8:29 am, The Historian
wrote:
On Feb 3, 4:37 am, samsloan wrote:

What does Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell think he is accomplishing
by
constantly overwriting other people's threads?

Google Groups only displays the title of the most recent post in a
thread.

Right. Now, does Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell think that the USCF is
going to hire him after all or that I am going to let him back in my
group because he keeps doing this?

I assume that Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell is the same person as
"Tennessee Vols" who has been attacking people over on Susan
Polgar's
http://www.chessdiscussion.com

Nah! This is our own Which Mitch? Remember, the guy posted stuff at
'your'
Yahoo group for 2 years until he asked questions about /your/ er...
'activities' and responsibilites for such remarks as you make above!

This is the real "Lex" Mitchell" aka "Blair-Slayer", and unless you
are
in
truth, Super-Sloan of Metropolis, you'd bett'rn not mess up your
Mitchells,
boy, cuz this doggee /is/ gonna hunt!

BTW - you really should not reveal materials about job applicants at
uscf
any more than you may sensibly comment on employee's medical
conditions -
its against the law.

If indeed you did just mention that I believe you renew your offence,
and
therefore legal resentment of it can be renewed.

Phil Innes

So, in other words, you are saying that I should not let readers know
that Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell applied twice for a job with the
USCF, was turned down, and has been attacking the USCF here ever
since.

Whether you should do so or not is of an imperative factor ['should']
known
only to yourself; but whether you break the law in doing so is less
equivocal: You do.

Phil Innes

In that case, kindly go to the DA and get this miscreant off the
streets.

(I thought your law license had expired.)

What you might think instead is that this continued instance of indiscretion
may have a couple of consequences - that someone calls you to account for
it, and secondly, who would trust such a person near personnel records
again? And will that not utterly sink your remaining future political
chances?

My decency licence has not expired, neither is this keyboard likely to.

Phil Innes