"Spam Scone" wrote in message
om...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...
Neil, not everyone with a family thinks stalking is very funny.

Not everyone thinks threats of violence against other posters is very
funny either, Phil. Your return to RGCP is only a prelude to a return
to your usual posting style, which consists of threats, lies, and
bullying.

Neil - I hope to avoid threats and lies and so on, even the impression of
it. Can you understand what it means to a family man when his family is
attacked? - Odd phone calls in the night, and so on? Even your friend Stan
responded the same as myself on this issue, and I think as any man would -
though it may seem uncouth - it is an extraordinarily strong emotion.

If it your intention to initiate and continue purely personal invective,
totally off-topic to the nominal subject then whatever evidence there is
for
my previous statements tends to be confirmed or otherwise by what
actually
happens in these threads, no?

No, not at all. But I think newcomers who may be seduced by the
goody-goody persona you are adopting on your return to RGCP may need
to be educated about your past performances.

Indeed, I hope you will keep everyone alert to brown-nosing opportunists!


This thread topic is a prospective national board-to-board chess match.
As a
chess historian can you or anyone else provide an answer to its
precedent?
Cordially, Phil Innes

I personally don't know of a prior match. This doesn't mean that there
hasn't been one.

Frankly, I don't even know where to look for a precedent. Half a dozen chess
anthologies don't cite any references at all. I wrote a dozen people I
thought might know something before posting here - everyone came up blank.

Now, look you, Neil, we have not exactly hit it off ever before, except for
a few brief messages that we exchanged privately. I was always glad that you
never wrote anything of that in public, and I ever respected this. I hope I
managed to do the same by you.

Please continue to be critical both of my ideas and your intuition of
motive - which I think is a strong thing with you - something I will even
take your Shakespearian correspondent to task about should he respond - I
entirely support your right to express yourself, even though you and I get
into difficulties with it - it is better said than not.

Cordially, Phil