"marc margolies" wrote in message ...
what you call vitriol in regard to my comments about your English usage is
supported by the fact that you appointed yourself the de facto monitor of
the english language here.

This is *not* about English language usage. It's about your having
been rude
to a poster, "Seabook", who, as far as I can tell, is new here, and
deserves
a warmer welcome than your horsewhipping for his having allegedly
maligned *your sensibilities* with regard to English usage.


also when you have taken the trouble to correct
me, your corrections are mostly very bad and wrong.

Give examples of this, troll.

most importantly troll, this is a chess forum and since you could not
appreciate the topic of my response you took it to an ad hominem level and
nervily-- i might add-- attempted to adjudicate the manners of others. Mark,
it is time to take the stick out of your ass an act like an adult-- or not.
mostly learn to read.

Give examples of my having misread or misrepresented you, troll.

then learn to think.

I'm working on that.

then learn english.

Do you mean: "Then, you might learn English."?

Physician heal thyself!

and if you
accomplish these human feats, which seems to be a stretch for you as you
think i am responsible for your education, try chess! (and then manners- but
why bother when you can 'prove' good manners don't exist because you have
never heard of them and don't care to discover them.)

If you display some manners towards "Seabook" and me, then I shall be
glad to reciprocate. Thus far, all you have done is troll, troll,
troll.

oh yeah i forgot-- you have the right to correct my english incorrectly
because you disagree with my opinions about chess on the internet.

Owing to its complete lack of punctuation, this sentence could be
interpreted in a number of disparate ways.

Here's one:

"Oh yeah...I forgot - you have to the right incorrectly to correct my
English because you disagree with my opinions about 'chess on the
internet'."

This interpretation seems unlikely, for two reasons:

1) I don't know if you *have* even *one* opinion about 'chess on the
internet', since I am unaware of your having expressed the same.

2) If you do have one or more opinions about 'chess on the internet',
then the fact that you've just introduced the tantalising possibility
that you wish the idea to be discussed, I am unable to venture
anything further until you elicit more information concerning your
opinion or opinions upon the topic.

Here's another one, which is perhaps a little more likely:

"Oh yeah...I forgot - you have the right incorrectly to correct my
English *because* you disagree with those opinions about chess which I
(Marc Margolies) have expressed on the internet."

Unfortunately, this, too, holds no water, since *at no time* have I
either agreed or disagreed with your opinions about chess, such as you
have essayed them, here.

What I *have* done, repeatedly (unfortunately to no avail...yet) is to
berate you for your being *incredibly rude* to people without your
having had *any* discernable, good reason for doing so. I shall
continue to berate you for this appalling behaviour until you *stop
behaving that way*. The more you do it, the more like an imbecile you
make yourself appear. This is really surprising, I had figured you for
a good guy. The more you persist, the more wrong I appear to have
been....

well,
houlsby, you haven't changed my mind about anything chessic, merely about
how educable you are. so i guess you now have a full-time job correcting my
views if you want it.

Once again: NOWHERE HAVE I CORRECTED YOUR VIEWS, YOU ILLITERATE,
IMBECILE OF A TROLL.

good luck and good-bye.

Right back atcha!