"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:
I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
trouble ho actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical,
diversion,
legal &c.
Care to list any particulars ?
Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
anything -... Like the
fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more
suspicious!
Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
about your various credentials, it tends
Cut it out Murray - stop //pretending// you are anything other than a
get-Truong single issue poster - and since you rubbish everything people
say, and 'doubt' it, then continue to ask for more personal information -
you are a farcical person to want 'credentials'.
This thread is about me asking you if YOU could tell the FSS materials from
the Sloan, and you offered me the 'credentials' of you own intelligence
which was the single word 'some'.
ROFL
to make me "more suspicious".
There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
about your credentials.
Look, if you wanna play chess, shut up and move
Otherwise you'll wind up paranoid, like Kennedy who has no evidence I use
computer, but is still sure of it! It doesn't want to risk his virginity out
there, and would rather pout impotently from home.
Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
authority,
Now you are come over all abstract. But you can't even answer a simple
question about yourself - and go on prosecuting other people AS IF you were
someone to impress~ !!
But you are not! You Murray don't want to know anything. You are
spectacularly insincere.
you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.
Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!
It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
board.
You really don't get it Murray. I don't owe you any explanations since you
are devious! Nothing at all depends on you knowing more about any subject
whatever. You have rubbished other people here because they don't like your
fixation on Truong. And you are not a reasonable person capable of
evaluating others, nevermind discuss the welbeing of children. Do you
understand my opinion of you?
Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.
What depends on these questions for Mike Murray?
For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
of children" -- a reform school, for example).
Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
litem might do, and we called you on it.
What ********! In fact I write very freely with others who are SINCERELY
interested in the welfare of children in chess. You are not - you only want
to know things so you can reduce or neutralise them. And you demonstrate
this all the time. So stop pretending, and furthermore, stop abusing other
people night and day, for things you DEMONSTRABALE display are insincere -
and you are incapable of taking an adult and decent view of things.
In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.
Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
bluffer. We want to see the cards.
'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating with
their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?