"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:0Haek.72$Cw5.21@trnddc01...
I think we both know what the facts are - I just wondered when you'd stop
posturing about your own behavior and admit them yourself.
I know the facts, but have no knowledge of what you claim to know. Given
what you have claimed to know in the past, it would be a stretch to say
that you are connected to factual reality.
Dear Brian Lafferty,
I asked you for a simple chronology of your postings, being what you knew
and when you knew it. Period!
Instead of making any plain answer you decline to do so, then, by some
strange means known only to yourself, you decide that my question [!!!] is
not connected to 'factual reality'.
And yet the question seeks to resolve the factual reality, no?
And only you can say what you knew and when you knew it - these being the
'facts' in question.
But if you don't want to, then shall we agree that you wrote about the
accusations, but not that the issue was vacated?
I agree to nothing with you, Phil.
You say so much Brian, about others, but you are rather shy yourself.
If you were a USCF member with access to the USCF issues forum, you'd see
the factual incorrectness of your statement.
Vague references to what happens elsewhere under different condtions? But my
question is about what is happening here in an unmoderated forum - but, as I
said before, if you don't wish to answer here, that's ok - I merely note
that you do not.
Phil Innes
postcript: as to Mr. Lafferty's final comment below, one he is fond to
repeat, shall we understand that that is also not anything normal to
legal apprehension, and that it too is 'political'?
Translation, please.
Why you write hate-speech? You surely can't pretend not to understand
that too!!
I am unaware of having written any hate speech. Please provide examples
or retract your patently stupid assertion.
Frequently suggesting that others are stupid, need help, and so on, when
they ask questions to establish the facts of an issue from those who have
them, seems to the context here.
If you want to volunteer proclamations about other people, instead of
answering their questions, then that is your choice. Putting the questioner
down, rather than addressing the question is the point!~
These are patently logical assertions resulting from a simple and direct
question. If /you/ do not answer a direct question in a direct way - it is
logical to insult the questioner for having asked it?
Does it publicly insult and demean them?
I thank you for your responses to date. I have established what I wanted to
find out.
Phil Innes
Or maybe you can not understand it, since who actually would notice or
care much in your ensemble?
Translation, please.
Phil Innes
3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above,
that this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the
Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he
is himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.
Earth to Phil. Your assumptions are not reality. I'll ignore the
remaineder of your verbal stupidity.
Another significant omission! Heuch! It is sometimes important in
collective issues to establish who should decide what about whom by
their candor and character, rather than their politics.
Now, please, Phi. Get professional help.
You have been of more help in these responses than you know, and you
are a professional, no? 
Sadly, not the type of professional help that you need.
Phil Innes
Phil Innes