Mike Murray wrote:
(Nick) wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
michael adams wrote about John Macnab:
See, here I was sailing away on the Spanish main...

Not funny. Some things you don't joke about.

"(Michael Adams) seems a 'reasonably literate reader' to me."
--Mike Murray (13 January 2004)

Evidently, Nick confuses literacy and propriety.

As far as I know, I doubt that John Macnab would agree at all with
Mike Murray that Michael Adams 'seems a reasonably literate reader'.

Let's examine the context of what Mike Murray originally wrote.
Here's what Mike Murray wrote in his original post in the thread,
"Legal threats from Polgar and Truong" (13 January 2004), which has
several other examples of Mike Murray's trolling:

Mike Murray wrote (13 January 2004) at me:
Can verbal correction of a trolling buffoon (i.e., one 'Nick') properly
be termed 'insolence'? Better to reserve the word for affronts to the
respected.

(My responses are appearing for the first time, here in this thread.)

A "trolling buffoon" would be an accurate self-description of Mike Murray.
With his characteristic dishonesty, Mike Murray again has *falsely* implied
that my writings here are not respected by any readers.

Here are some comments about my writings here from a broad variety of readers:

Jerome Bibuld:
"The general tenor of your posts has been so heartwarmingly human and
winningly intelligent."

Bill Brock:
"Bravo. I concur with all your major points."

Jerzy Ciruk:
"You are absolutely right." (about the Soviet media's coverage of Kasparov)

Mark Houlsby:
"Nick's post is typically lucid and balanced."

Phil Innes:
"Nick, you are a fair writer."

John Macnab:
"Great story! Thanks."

Matt Nemmers:
"I believe you're an intelligent individual and I respect your opinions."

Susan Polgar:
"Nick, Thank you....I am glad to see posters like you."

Simon Spivack:
"Your posts are amongst the most rewarding in RGCM, even though we do
differ on some things."

Larry Tapper:
"I've been enjoying your scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."

Then Mike Murray wrote (13 January 2004) at me:
At any rate, why attack Mr. (Michael) Adams?

Indeed, why should Michael Adams *not* be above criticism (sarcasm intended)?

Evidently, he believed the snipping (Mike Murray's extreme snipping of
my posts in the thread, 'Legal threats from Polgar and Truong') to be
honest, the characterization (Mike Murray's usual ad hominem nonsense)
of the anonymous Nick to be accurate (given that we know him only
through his self-revelations in these forums) and, as it were, pointed.

I don't know and I don't care about exactly what Michael Adams 'believed'.

For the record, however, in his post (13 January 2004) in the thread
'Legal threats from Polgar and Truong', Michael Adams did *not* write
*any words* about Mike Murray's "snipping to be honest" or Mike Murray's
"characterization of the anonymous Nick to be accurate..."

In short, Mike Murray seems to be placing his own words in the mouth of
Michael Adams, who might have agreed with them but who did not express them.

Here's the complete original text of Michael Adams's post (13 January 2004):
"Jeez, I so much disagree with (Mark) HOULSBY - the troll, & where does
this farty Nick, in effect FART himself to kingdom come? for I care nothing
for their vanity. This Mike Murraymint for example, I never did see him say
a bad word, but all the time this dumb Nicky fart accuse him of the insolence."

Then Mike Murray wrote in his praise of Michael Adams and his post (above):
(Michael Adams) Seems a 'reasonably literate reader' to me.

On the other hand, 'The Masked Bishop' wrote in his response to the
same Michael Adams post (which Mike Murray praised) in that same thread:

"ESL (English as a Second Language) classes are offered at a community
college near you."
--'The Masked Bishop' (13 January 2004, writing to Michael Adams)

"Excuse me, I meant special education classes, which you obviously are
more in need of."
--'The Masked Bishop' (15 January 2004, writing to Michael Adams)

Evidently, 'The Masked Bishop' disagreed with what Michael Adams wrote and
with Mike Murray's judgement that Michael Adams "seems a 'reasonably literate
reader'.

As far as I can tell, Mike Murray's evident intention in writing his post of
13 January 2004 in the thread, 'Legal threats from Polgar and Truong',
was to contend that Michael Adams was not only a 'reasonably literate reader'
but also a deservedly more respected writer (than I am) in the chess newgroups,
and hence Michael Adams would qualify as a worthy supporter of Mike Murray's
trolling of me.

Only the most inexperienced, ignorant, gullible, or nearly illiterate readers
here, however, should be deceived by Mike Murray's attempts at trolling me.

The 'bottom line' here is that Michael Adams is a troll and Mike Murray
is a troll. And trolls tend to like to encourage and to feed one another.

--Nick