The Historian wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:
snip

Mark,
I fooled you. I am dumb as a stump.

I don't believe it.

It's true. And he's hardly a newbie. Robtroll comes out whenever Innes,
a business associate, runs into problems online.

Sssshhhhhhh Neil. Keep this under your hat, in case Phil or Rob finds
out: I already knew this. Whenever I write to someone that I am giving
them the benefit of the doubt, that means that they're basically dead
meat. I'm adopting the stealth approach. Sssshhhhhhh.

Thanks for your post.

Mark

The Historian wrote:
snipped personal attack



Sssshhhhhhh Neil. Keep this under your hat, in case Phil or Rob finds
out: I already knew this. Whenever I write to someone that I am giving
them the benefit of the doubt, that means that they're basically dead
meat. I'm adopting the stealth approach. Sssshhhhhhh.

Thanks for your post.

Mark

Now my feelings are hurt Mark. See, whenever I post something I have
this person who wants to attack me. He just did it again. I never
mentioned him, I never attacked him, yet he feels the need to inject
himself into any thread in which Mr. Innes or myself are discussing a
topic.
Guess my olive branch wasn't wanted.
Merry Christmas just the same.
Rob

Rob wrote:

The Historian wrote:
snipped personal attack



Sssshhhhhhh Neil. Keep this under your hat, in case Phil or Rob finds
out: I already knew this. Whenever I write to someone that I am giving
them the benefit of the doubt, that means that they're basically dead
meat. I'm adopting the stealth approach. Sssshhhhhhh.

Thanks for your post.

Mark

Now my feelings are hurt Mark.

Usenet is not for everybody. If you intend to leap into flame wars, an
asbestos skin is a prerequisite, since becoming involved in flame wars
necessarily involves being completely engulfed in flame from the
get-go.

Don't tell me you didn't know that.

See, whenever I post something I have
this person who wants to attack me. He just did it again. I never
mentioned him, I never attacked him, yet he feels the need to inject
himself into any thread in which Mr. Innes or myself are discussing a
topic.

Yeah, sure.

That's kinda like saying:

"All I did was walk up to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, and say that
Adolf Hitler was a good guy who had some forward-looking policies on
population control.

Next thing I know, all these guys I never met before set upon me for no
good reason...".

Guess my olive branch wasn't wanted.
Merry Christmas just the same.
Rob

Holly works better at Christmas. Or mistletoe. Olive branches are for
Easter. Get with the program.

If you associate yourself with Phil, if you ever post anything in his
support, this sorta **** will happen. Phil is a deranged troll with a
mental age of three. If you wanna be his buddy, go right ahead.

Happy holidays to you and yours.
Mark

Guy Macon wrote:

Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Newsflash: The reason that Mr. Macon started this thread, is that he
has noticed this tendency. More and more people are noticing that you
are a jerk with no redeeming qualities.

He used a posting from five years agoto begin a thread? It is obviously
nothing more than an attempt to begin a flame war with Mr. Innes.

Not true. The reason I started this thread was that in researching
Philip Innes' claims about universal turing machines, I saw him
make some claims about certain computers at NASA that, if true,
would be important for the engineering community to know about.
I was not aware at the time of Innes various other unbelievable
claims.


I stand corrected. I note your acknowledging that you now know about
Phil's fantasy world.

Seems to me you've been making (welcome) contributions to these groups
for long enough that this should not surprise you.

Thanks for the clarification.

Mark Houlsby

Guy Macon wrote:
Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Newsflash: The reason that Mr. Macon started this thread, is that he
has noticed this tendency. More and more people are noticing that you
are a jerk with no redeeming qualities.

He used a posting from five years agoto begin a thread? It is obviously
nothing more than an attempt to begin a flame war with Mr. Innes.

Not true. The reason I started this thread was that in researching
Philip Innes' claims about universal turing machines, I saw him
make some claims about certain computers at NASA that, if true,
would be important for the engineering community to know about.
I was not aware at the time of Innes various other unbelievable
claims.

Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Guy,
I am sure that if you write to Mr.Innes directly he would entertain
honest discourse with you. Unlike many who post in newsgroups he uses
his real email address and is very good about responding to civil
inquiries.
I am sory if I falsley implicated you.
Best Wishes,
Rob Mitchell

Rob wrote:

Now my feelings are hurt Mark. See, whenever I post something I have
this person who wants to attack me. He just did it again. I never
mentioned him, I never attacked him, yet he feels the need to inject
himself into any thread in which Mr. Innes or myself are discussing a
topic.


It sounds as if "Rob" has carefully monitored not only
the threads in which he posts, but also the threads in
which Phil Innes posts as well. Interesting. I am
beginning to wonder if "Rob" is to IM Innes, as those
posters Larry Parr is always complaining about are to
Taylor Kingston. Except of course that instead of
"praising" (or simply agreeing with) TK, Rob's main
function would be to defend PI by accompanying him
everywhere he posts.

At any rate, this might explain why it is that "Rob"
never seems to mind certain things, *except* when
they inconvenience Phil Innes. To clairify: PI "defends"
LP, while "Rob" defends PI. But wait -- who is going
to defend "Rob"? That leaves him wide open! Someone
is not holding up his end on this "team", or rather,
confederacy of dunces.

-- help bot

help bot wrote:
Rob wrote:

Now my feelings are hurt Mark. See, whenever I post something I have
this person who wants to attack me. He just did it again. I never
mentioned him, I never attacked him, yet he feels the need to inject
himself into any thread in which Mr. Innes or myself are discussing a
topic.


It sounds as if "Rob" has carefully monitored not only
the threads in which he posts, but also the threads in
which Phil Innes posts as well. Interesting. I am
beginning to wonder if "Rob" is to IM Innes, as those
posters Larry Parr is always complaining about are to
Taylor Kingston. Except of course that instead of
"praising" (or simply agreeing with) TK, Rob's main
function would be to defend PI by accompanying him
everywhere he posts.

Dear Flame-bot,

LOL

two years ago when I began reading and postin in the news group Mr.
Innes was the only person to honestly and without a selh righteous air,
answer my "newb" questions. The attacks on me began then simply because
I began a dialog with Mr. Innes.

He does not need me to defend him. I do not need anyone to defend me as
I have done NOTHING to require being defended . I read most of these
posts in this chess newsgroup and in the other. So I am aware, as are
you, when Phil posts something and when the all too predictable attacks
begin.



At any rate, this might explain why it is that "Rob"
never seems to mind certain things, *except* when
they inconvenience Phil Innes. To clairify: PI "defends"
LP, while "Rob" defends PI. But wait -- who is going
to defend "Rob"? That leaves him wide open! Someone
is not holding up his end on this "team", or rather,
confederacy of dunces.

I reserve the right to defend whoever I wish. If someone is being
attacked without being provoked, I may defend them as well and I have
done so. I also do so under my real name and with my real email as I
have nothing to hide and no dishonor is associated with my actions. I
will own all of my mistakes and correct them as they happen.

No anger is in this post from me. It is just a matter of fact
statement.
Rob

-- help bot

Rob wrote:

It sounds as if "Rob" has carefully monitored not only
the threads in which he posts, but also the threads in
which Phil Innes posts as well. Interesting. I am
beginning to wonder if "Rob" is to IM Innes, as those
posters Larry Parr is always complaining about are to
Taylor Kingston. Except of course that instead of
"praising" (or simply agreeing with) TK, Rob's main
function would be to defend PI by accompanying him
everywhere he posts.

Dear Flame-bot,

LOL

two years ago when I began reading and postin in the news group Mr.
Innes was the only person to honestly and without a selh righteous air,
answer my "newb" questions. The attacks on me began then simply because
I began a dialog with Mr. Innes.

Really? You were attacked simply for beginning a dialog
with Phil Innes, and nothing else?


He does not need me to defend him.


That sounds right; so then why do you?
Constantly defend Mr. Innes, I mean. I have
read many threads in which you *leap* on someone
for attacking Mr. Innes, but in that same thread
IM Innes or someone else has done precisely what
you criticize the attacker for, yet that never seems to
matter. It's always a matter of taking sides for you,
not a matter of principle.


I do not need anyone to defend me as
I have done NOTHING to require being defended .

Not true! Just now, you put a space before the
period at the end of a sentence, which simply isn't
done. Suppose everyone did it? Do you know how
many spaces would just get wasted, thrown away
for nothing? Bazillions! :D

It is true that people seem to gang up on Mr. Innes
here, and if you feel the need to root for the underdog,
you picked the right man to constantly defend, right
or wrong.


I read most of these
posts in this chess newsgroup and in the other. So I am aware, as are
you, when Phil posts something and when the all too predictable attacks
begin.

I believe that over the course of many years, Mr. Innes
has managed to accumulate many "enemies" here, and
yes, the attacks are predictable. Even some of his few
allies more often than not, shoot their pal in the foot
while attempting to defend him from the frequent attacks.
One example is Larry Parr, who continually dredges up
the subject of (supposedly Taylor Kingston's) making
false claims to high status in chess -- a crime of which
"IM" Innes has been caught red-handed. This is where
the term "confederacy of dunces" comes in, for you see,
none of these guys "gets" the fact that they are shooting
each other or being shot. They are simply in a mental
fog so thick you can swim in it.


At any rate, this might explain why it is that "Rob"
never seems to mind certain things, *except* when
they inconvenience Phil Innes. To clairify: PI "defends"
LP, while "Rob" defends PI. But wait -- who is going
to defend "Rob"? That leaves him wide open! Someone
is not holding up his end on this "team", or rather,
confederacy of dunces.

I reserve the right to defend whoever I wish. If someone is being
attacked without being provoked, I may defend them as well and I have
done so.

No one is trying to stop you. All I've done here is
observe and comment.

I also do so under my real name


You mean part of your real name, I think. Or are
you one of those people with just one name, like
say, Cher or Raffi? :D


and with my real email as I
have nothing to hide and no dishonor is associated with my actions.

Once again, you are sounding exactly like a
clone of Phil Innes! Did you miss my subtle
insinuation of this before? If so, please note
that I am suggesting that whether or not you
really are PI, your behavior closely resembles
that of someone who creates an alter-ego in
order to "defend" himself under a fake name.

But then, I have only stumbled across some
of your postings at random, and have no clue
as to the big picture of "Rob".


I will own all of my mistakes

(They're not worth all that much!)


and correct them as they happen.

No anger is in this post from me. It is just a matter of fact
statement.

Same here. I have actually attempted to help Mr.
Innes, but he is as stubborn as he is thickheaded!
I'm not sure he even comprehends how destroying
his own credibility can be detrimental to himself.
A lot of people I have known are like that.

-- help bot

Rob wrote:

help bot wrote:
Rob wrote:

Now my feelings are hurt Mark. See, whenever I post something I have
this person who wants to attack me. He just did it again. I never
mentioned him, I never attacked him, yet he feels the need to inject
himself into any thread in which Mr. Innes or myself are discussing a
topic.


It sounds as if "Rob" has carefully monitored not only
the threads in which he posts, but also the threads in
which Phil Innes posts as well. Interesting. I am
beginning to wonder if "Rob" is to IM Innes, as those
posters Larry Parr is always complaining about are to
Taylor Kingston. Except of course that instead of
"praising" (or simply agreeing with) TK, Rob's main
function would be to defend PI by accompanying him
everywhere he posts.

Dear Flame-bot,

LOL

two years ago when I began reading and postin in the news group Mr.
Innes was the only person to honestly and without a selh righteous air,
answer my "newb" questions. The attacks on me began then simply because
I began a dialog with Mr. Innes.


Which tells you what...?

He does not need me to defend him.

That's true. He needs a really good psychiatrist.

I do not need anyone to defend me as
I have done NOTHING to require being defended .

I beg to differ. In this post:

http://masl.to/?V3E212E5E

....you wrote:

"Givin (sic) certain contitions (sic), a man can out perform (sic) a
motorcycle and some
automobiles. ..."

Oh yes? All at once, or separately? Precisely to *what* "contitions"
(sic) do you refer? Putting the man in an airplane? Removing the motor
from the motorcycle and/or automobiles?

What the deuce do you mean?

You continued:

"I suspect the same set of rigid controls could be applied and designed

to level they (sic) playing field."

Upon what is your suspicion based? Is suspicion reason enough to post?

Then there was this post of yours earlier in this thread:

http://masl.to/?E16332E5E

....which was challenged by me in this post:

http://masl.to/?Z69321E5E

....but my challenge, as yet, remains unanswered. In it, you may recall,
I explained to you that *because of Phil's history in this group*
anyone who defends him is putting himself/herself on the line, whether
they wish it or not, whether they know it or not. If you don't like
being attacked all the time, don't whine about it.... LEAVE THE GROUP.

If you're not prepared to leave the group, then either take your
punishment (for punishment it is) or defend yourself vigorously. If you
attempt to adopt a "middle way" you'll find yourself being
steamrollered right and left, like here, for example.

Then there was this post:

http://masl.to/?U3B326E5E

....which appears to be nothing more (and, alas, nothing less) than a
verbatim reproduction of a spamming post by the troll Sanny. Were you
trying to drum up business for his pathetic little website? Were you
being paid? What was the deal there?

Then there was this post:

http://masl.to/?L3E325E5E

....which appears to be an unsupported, speculative attack upon the
impeccable Dr. Louis Blair (evidently he had just blown you out of the
water, which left you feeling constrained to lash out). Explain
yourself.

There are many more examples. Do you want me to cite them?

Anyways, for now, back to the post in this thread, to which this post
of mine is a reply...

I read most of these
posts in this chess newsgroup and in the other. So I am aware, as are
you, when Phil posts something and when the all too predictable attacks
begin.


Given that these attacks are all-too-predictable, no doubt you saw this
one coming, and have a comprehensive refutation prepared in advance...
Let's have it...



At any rate, this might explain why it is that "Rob"
never seems to mind certain things, *except* when
they inconvenience Phil Innes. To clairify: PI "defends"
LP, while "Rob" defends PI. But wait -- who is going
to defend "Rob"? That leaves him wide open! Someone
is not holding up his end on this "team", or rather,
confederacy of dunces.

I reserve the right to defend whoever I wish.

I shall defend to the death your right to do that, but if you keep
talking out of the wrong end of your alimentary canal..... well....

If someone is being
attacked without being provoked,

Ah, but there's the rub: IT'S NOT WITHOUT PROVOCATION, as I have now
explained to you...twice. Must I do it a third time?


I may defend them as well and I have
done so. I also do so under my real name and with my real email as I
have nothing to hide and no dishonor is associated with my actions.

That rather depends upon how you reply to *this* post. Without
question, there is a number of your posts which I have cited above
which are dishonourable. *If* you now make a good account of yourself,
*then* you might be able to claim that "...no dishonor is associated
with [your] actions.". Until then, the jury is out.

I
will own all of my mistakes and correct them as they happen.


Good to hear. Set to it, then...

No anger is in this post from me.

Good to hear.

It is just a matter of fact
statement.

That is false.

Mark

Guy Macon wrote:

help bot wrote:

It is true that people seem to gang up on Mr. Innes here,

My experience was as follows; I posted some perfectly polite
material in a purely technical discussion, and Mr. Innes
becaame aggressive and rude for no apparent reason other than
my asking him to define some non-standard terms he was using.

Yes, that sounds like our Phil...