"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 7:54 am, SBD wrote:
On Apr 15, 6:36 am, "Chess One" wrote:

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?

No Phil, just people who, when you claim such things as "I was on a
state board which has to do with the welfare of children" would like
to know the name of that state board and when you served. It really is
that simple.

I think you don't understand, Phil, that your constant lying about
credentials such as your "almost an IM" title means that very few
people take seriously much that you spew forth on the keyboard. You
could start to fix that by, if you really did serve on such a board,
simply stating when and where.

Now you can start a long screed about how I am "against life" or some
other nonsense or you could simply answer the question. Not who you
"write with" (one of those, please, "Look how great I am! Grandmasters
and people who are SINCERELY are in MY court..... blah, blah, blah")
or other people's supposed faults - just name the board you served on
and your tenure.

Is that possible?

Time once again for the following classic analysis by Taylor Kingston:

"Look, Phil, this is a very simple matter, rather like asking "How
many beans make five?".

Why is the chief abusenik on these newsgroups, Neil Brennan, talking about
beans, when the topic is Hanken's abuse?

Look, Taylor, its not about Mussolini? Seems more apt.

I think that if you were asked that question,
you would huff and puff for many paragraphs, perhaps rejecting the
concept of "five," going off on tangents about number theory, or even
claiming that the question loses all legitimacy because it omits other
vegetables. You would claim that the questioner has a hidden Legumist
agenda, seeking to suppress dissenting Brassican and Cucurbist views.
You would insist that the beans denounce Neil Brennen. You would claim
to know more beans, and more about beans, than anyone else. You would
do anything, ANYTHING, but answer, simply: FIVE."

We ain't talking beans, we're talking abuse. How many abusive years you been
at it, five?

If Dowd wants to know anything at all, which he don't, then he'll mouth off
like Kingston, and you will enjoy it, and two other people will chip in,
making 5.

Beans! Bugger beans Brennan!

Abuseniks once again pretend there is no issue of decent investigation, even
if it means mentioning the kids, and to them its all reducible to more
beans.

Phil Innes