Louis Blair wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote (to Rob Mitchell)
(15 Oct 2006 11:41:46 -0700):
7 ... [Phil Innes] said that I may have pulled old posts of mine.
7 I have *_never_* done that. I don't even know *_how_* to do it.
7 Innes replied with mock innocence that he was merely saying
7 it was "possible." OK, turnabout is fair play, then. I noted some
7 things that it was "possible" for Innes to do, such as tax evasion
7 and murder. If we're going to fling ridiculous possibilities around,
7 let's go whole hog.
_
Rob Mitchell wrote (to Taylor Kingston)
(15 Oct 2006 16:06:12 -0700):
7 Oh, SO you did make that accusation.
_
I wrote (to Rob Mitchell)
(15 Oct 2006 17:16:02 -0700):
7 Some of what actually happened:
7
7 "... TK may have pulled his original post where he
7 wrote the comment, ..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 14 Oct 2006
7 12:01:28 GMT)
7
7 "... I have never "pulled" any of my newsgroup posts.
7 I do not even know how that can be done. ..." - Taylor
7 Kingston (14 Oct 2006 07:32:52 -0700)
7
7 "... I cite it because it is possible to do so - therefore
7 said 'may'. ..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 14 Oct 2006
7 17:59:39 GMT)
7
7 "... It is possible to do a great many things. Shall we
7 therefore say to the IRS 'Phil Innes may have cheated
7 on his taxes'? Or to the police 'Phil Innes may have
7 killed that UVM student'? It's possible, after all. ..."
7 - Taylor Kingston (14 Oct 2006 14:02:36 -0700)

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (to Rob Mitchell)
(15 Oct 2006 11:41:46 -0700):
7 By the way, Rob, you misuse the word "allude," ...
_
Rob Mitchell wrote (to Taylor Kingston)
(15 Oct 2006 16:06:12 -0700):
7 Maybe. The point is to communicate a thought. You understood
7 what was being said and to attack an argument based upon
7 grammar rather than the crux of the argument itself ...
_
I wrote (to Rob Mitchell)
(15 Oct 2006 17:16:02 -0700):
7 I suggest that Rob Mitchell look again at the first Taylor
7 Kingston quote above.
_
Rob Mitchell wrote (15 Oct 2006 20:26:20 -0700
7 Ok. What am I supposed to be looking for? ...
_
I wrote (15 Oct 2006 20:38:29 -0700):
7 Taylor Kingston dealing with "the crux of the argument itself".

_
Rob Mitchell wrote (15 Oct 2006 21:10:31 -0700):

7 WHich is? There are several topics in the first paragraph.

_
It was Rob Mitchell himself who referred to "the crux of the
argument itself" in his 15 Oct 2006 16:06:12 -0700 note.
If he does not know what he was talking about, I do not see
why I should help him.

it was Louis Blair who suggested I look at TK's quote for the crux of
the matter. If Lois Blair cannot more clearly describe what point it is
he wants additional comment on perhaps he should cease.

"Rob" If Lois Blair cannot more clearly describe what point it is
he wants additional comment on perhaps he should cease.

Maybe Lois' gay lover, Wlod can help. He seems to have a handle on things.

Yahoo Ben Yoda wrote:
"Rob" If Lois Blair cannot more clearly describe what point it is
he wants additional comment on perhaps he should cease.

Maybe Louis' gay lover, Wlod can help. He seems to have a handle on things.

Sorry for the typo. That should have been Louis Blair.
Please do not attribute the "gay" comment to me. I find it distastful
and inappropriate and a slur and a slander on Dr. Blair and on Wold..
Rob

Rob wrote:

Dr Blair,
Do not comment upon this. You have no opinion





Rob wrote:
Rob wrote:
To Whom It May Concern:

When will Brennen be encouraged to retact the publically posted
potentially damaging claims about his publisher, Chessville? Is this
the type and tenor of behaivor that a "professional
journalist/historian" is encouraged and expected to exibit? Is someone
whose profession it is to promote the reading of a subject,chess, to be
encouraged to publically attack and demean others of the same
profession? Such actions do little to further the enjoyment of reading
about the royal game and colors negativly the general publics
impression of the game.

.It was once well said that the "pen is mightier than the sword" and
one cannot deny that the implication is clear that Mr. Brennen 's
intent was to damage not only an individual but also an entire
publication.

I do not repersent the publication in question nor do I present any
evidence of personal injury to myself. Neither should it be thought
that I have been encouraged by any individual or organization to bring
this to your attention. I am simply one person, acting alone .

It should be noted that Mr. Brennen regularly posts under the name of
The Histrollian as well as Spamscone.


Examples to follow:


================================================== ======
The Historian - view profile

Date: Sun, Apr 16 2006 4:12 pm

Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


- Show quoted text -

Still no correction at Chessvile. Meanwhile, Innes has found the time
to carry Keene's water at Chessvile. The following comment little
resembles the drivel Keene/Innes have been posting

================================================== ===

From: The Historian - view profile

Date: Sun, Jan 15 2006 10:52 am

Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

wrote:
Spamscone wrote:
BTW, Innes/Chessvile failed to include a disclosure of their connection
to Chess4Less, the failed bidder. It must be an oversight.
Of course it was.
It's the same mistake Chessvile made in failing to disclose that Innes
was the 'mind', so to speak, behind the Parrot's mouth. If that is
indeed the orifice the Parrot uses.

I doubt even 800 will wade through that recycled crapola, Philth.
It is doubtful that Chessvile gets more than 5,000-10,000 unique
visitors a month. The combination of little or no original content, a
nightmare of a home page, incomprehensible navigation and a "shop" that
sells at full retail or above makes for a truly underwhelming
experience.
It seems a website well-suited to the unique talents of its Business
Manager. I wish the good material they do offer, including articles by
Rick Kennedy, sat in better company.
Although the topic has been beaten to death for a long time, it is
important to keep the bashing of the USCF, Russell, the Executive
Board, Goichberg, etc., going as long as possible. Then Chessvile would
be at loss at what to copy next.
You may recall that Innes/Chessvile was puffing Goichberg during the
last election.
Finally, speaking of copying, perhaps it is particularly ironic (or
appropriate) that the defender of the faith presented by Anus and
Chessvile is... Ray Keene.


================================================== ====
From: The Historian - view profile

Date: Sun, Apr 30 2006 3:16 am

Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Mike Nolan wrote:
"Chess One" writes:
And so in some disgust - I leave you to your own peculiarly inert
'business'.
Anybody want to bet me that Phil makes at least one more post to
the Forums after the one that appears to be his farewell address?
--
Mike Nolan
Oh, no doubt of it, if only because he needs to fill his 'Parrot'
column. He's included nearly the entire post at Chessvile.


===============================================
From: - view profile

Date: Tues, Oct 25 2005 4:59 pm

Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

:

I note that Chessvile also fails to stock many Moravian titles,
including the only journal dedicated to chess history, the Quarterly
for Chess History. Why is it that Innes and Chessvile supports a
blacklist of John Hilbert, John Donaldson, Vlastimil Fiala, Ken Whyld,
Richard Forster, Tony Gillam, Tomasz Lissowski, Olimpiu Urcan, and
other leading historians?

==============================================
From: The Historian - view profile

Date: Mon, Aug 15 2005 6:02 am

Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

A couple of recent droppings from the smelly Parrot cage at ChessVile.
They continue the policy of attacking the Marinello presidency and
praising the Dream Team:
Any doubt as to the identity of the author of this tripe was removed by

the following confession at ChessVile:
"The Parrot relies on and is heavily indebted to Phil Innes for
gathering information which appears in this column..."

===============================================
From: The Historian - view profile

Date: Fri, May 20 2005 7:50 pm
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


- Show quoted text -

I know this may come as a shock to some, but Mr. Innes is wrong. Larry
Evans did publish a response on Chesscafe. As for the Parr and Innes
letters, Parr's material was a complete mess, and if Innes' response
was like the "British Language" that pollutes his newsgroup posts and
Chessvile writing, who can blame Hanon for barring the door?
If Innes' response was like the "British Language" that pollutes his
newsgroup posts and Chessvile writing, who can blame Hanon for barring
the door?

==================================================
From: Spam Scone - view profile

Date: Tues, Nov 23 2004 9:25 pm
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:hlPod.11408$Vy.4009@trndny06...
I've been
there Phil, have you? You aren't even a member, so you have no rights to ask
questions anyway,
No one has said this. Instead they have pointed out that you repeat
the same questions without reading the responses.
even if you are a strong chessplayer,
Or even if, as in your case, you are not.
and international
organser,
You, an "organser"? So Phil, just what is it you have organsed?
and journalist
AKA shill for the notorious spam site Chessvile

===========================================
From: The Historian - view profile

Date: Tues, Jan 24 2006 7:55 pm

Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Chess One wrote:
One need not be able to solve a single position in
Schiller's book of combinations to see that he copied it almost whole
from another book. One need not understand any analysis in Keene's
gambit book to see that he copied a chapter virtually word-for-word and
move-for-move from Donaldson.
I believe Ray keene did not pay a penny, his publisher did.
Gee, that's an important difference, Philth.
But this is such
petty stuff and happens all the time
Such an attitude is merely another reason for a writer to avoid
Chessvile.

================================================
From: - view profile

Date: Sat, Oct 8 2005 2:23 am

not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


- Show quoted text -

I'm not surprised that Chessvile features books by Schiller; the
website is relentlessly downmarket in its approach. Publishing cranks
like Innes and James Schroeder and featuring stealth advertising for
chess politicians as 'articles' is surely a flight from quality.

===========================================
From: - view profile

Date: Sat, Aug 5 2006 5:59 pm

Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

wrote:
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:05:22 GMT):
7 ... You don't deny that you would have gone to Hanon's
7 Chesscafe do and told Niro 'all about' Evans - yet you say
7 you have nothing to do with the book banning scenario?
Is it just me, or does Phil have absolutely no concept of what it means
to "ban" a book?
No, it's not just you. Innes is completely clueless. Well, perhaps not
completely; after all, he, as business manager for Chessvile, does have

an interest in shilling for people such as Malcolm Pein, failed bidder
for the USCF B and E store. Somehow he thinks nobody sees through his
pose.
. The man's an idiot, but thinks he's a genius.



============================================
From: The Historian - view profile

Date: Sun, Jul 17 2005 2:25 pm

Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Another example of the political bias Mr. Innes delights in, taken from

his "Alekhine's Parrot" twaddle at ChessVile


===================================
From: Spam Scone - view profile

Date: Fri, Dec 10 2004 8:51 pm

Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Angelo DePalma wrote:
Why would anyone not simply use their email program's newsreader?
Google is
great, but who needs their groups?
Using the email's newsreader is an invitation to have spammers and
their ilk "harvest" your email address. I had a nasty experience a
couple of years ago with the "feeble" Chessvile spamsite Phil Innes
posts on. The nice folks there "autosubscribed" (their term) posters
from The Correspondence Chess Message Board and required them to log
into a webpage (once again, giving their email address) to be removed
from the mailing list. That's why I've used the dummy email with Spam
Scone's postings. As for why I use the name "Spam Scone", well, it's a
sign of the contempt I have for USCF politics


================================================== ======

Dr Blair,
Do not comment upon this. You have no opinion


Who cares about Neil Brennen? Who is he? A fake historian? I'm the
real historian. Everyone knows me. My friends are some of the most
famous people such as Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, Beatrize Marinello, Don
Schultz, Bill Goichberg, etc.

Sam Sloan