Why don't you save your advice for pretty Taylor, Mike?

Who are you to prognosticate on things - you are not interested in chess,
and out to get people. You get canned every time you do it on your own, so
need allies mmmmooooooooooooooo!

You cant say more than literally one word on the matter if you have looked
at any evidence from the writing itself, which is almost as numb-brained as
Guy Macon who demands 'show me the file!'

Pity all you guys weren't here when the FSS was posting - you could have
seen what he wrote.

This thread is about the indecency of not mentioning that 'charges' were not
upheld by a court, and were not even related as charges at all, and this by
the president of the CJA, showing off his skills at writing - and on being
challenged, had nothing to say.

That's proxy wars for you. Never defend! Indeed, his utterances were
indefensible in decent society. I understand that some people find this
funny, and that is likely because they have not, and definitely should not,
have anything to do with children.

Phil Innes

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

You know, Phil, an indignant refusal to answer directly can be
effective if done sparingly by a person with a reputation for calm
rationality. Think of "Have you no shame, sir, have you no shame?" or
"... they now include my little dog, Falla".

But when you do it all the time, you come off like a street person on
crack.

My advice: Face facts, Phil. Focus on forgetting fulminating for the
foreseeable future.