Liar - you posted 500 words of abuse, since you are presumably too proud to
admit you didn't understand what a Turing Engine was, or to look it up -
then you changed the subject from method to machine.

You merely attract applause from Kingston and Kennedy because they don't
know either, and like you they both have written perfectly polite technical
discursive material.

Are you all really nutz!@? Maybe if you tell each other you aren't then it
will be true, and then you can all pretend together and it will be lovely!

Meantime, do you think its fair to play chess by the rules or not? That is
the 'technical basis' of the discussion to which, and I excuse you
personally for not answering it since no one else is honest enough to do so
either, we certainly have not disagreed since there is no one here I can
respond to.

Phil Innes





"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



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.

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

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...

Another 'technical discussion' by someone who thinks this sort of sly
commentary isn't avoidance of the topic - and presumably where they are is
called 'discussion'. What a bunch of ******s!

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

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...

Another 'technical discussion' by someone who thinks this sort of sly
commentary isn't avoidance of the topic - and presumably where they are is
called 'discussion'.

FYI the subject heading of this thread is: "Question about Philip Innes
AKA Phil Innes". This means that:

a) it's NOT a "'technical discussion'".

b) it's *clearly* NOT "avoidance of the topic" since in this thread
YOU, Phil Innes, ARE the topic.

We're discussing YOU. We're discussing what a waste of space YOU ARE.
We're discussing YOUR having a mental age of three. We're discussing
YOUR tendency to resort to ad hom, often against the WRONG poster.

We're discussing YOU--the TOPIC of this thread.

How can that be: "avoidance of the topic"?

What a bunch of ******s!

I must admit that wanking may be an area in which you are an expert.

Mark Houlsby

On 15 Dec 2006 07:38:22 -0800, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:

Chess One wrote:

What a bunch of ******s!

I must admit that wanking may be an area in which you are an expert.

Now, let's be even-handed about this.

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

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...

Another 'technical discussion' by someone who thinks this sort of sly
commentary isn't avoidance of the topic - and presumably where they are is
called 'discussion'.

FYI the subject heading of this thread reads: "Question about Philip
Innes AKA Phil Innes"

So YOU, Phil Innes, ARE "the topic", in this case. We're discussing
YOU. We're discussing what a waste of space YOU ARE. We're discussing
YOUR having a mental age of three. We're discussing YOU.


What a bunch of ******s!

I must admit that wanking may well be a subject in which you are an
expert.

If you wish to avoid what you describe as "sly commentary" then you
really need to GROW UP. Take responsibility for your actions. Admit
your mistakes. Most of all, when you are wrong (and the evidence
suggests that you are wrong more often than you are right) learn just
to SHUT THE **** UP.

Got it?

Mark Houlsby

Chess One wrote:

Liar

No, he isn't, and this is a prime example of WHY you get your very own
thread. In EVERY CASE he has posted EVIDENCE whereas you have AVOIDED
or IGNORED the evidence as is your habitual wont.

- you posted 500 words of abuse,

Oh yes? Point EXACTLY to the whereabouts of these "500 words of abuse"
as you describe them. I promise you this: if, indeed, it proves true
that Mr. Macon has posted 500 or even 50 words of abuse then I shall
personally reprimand him much as a great many of us frequently have to
reprimand you... Deal?

since you are presumably too proud to
admit you didn't understand what a Turing Engine was, or to look it up -
then you changed the subject from method to machine.


Seems that you are alone in this, as in many things, Phil. You use
non-standard definitions, and then get angry even when (as in Mr.
Macon's case) someone politely asks you what on earth you mean.

You merely attract applause from Kingston and Kennedy because they don't
know either, and like you they both have written perfectly polite technical
discursive material.


Not so. He attracts applause not only from Kingston and Kennedy, but
from Brennen, Dowd, K. Sloan, and, last but not least, from me. Also
the reason he attracts applause is not, as you mistakenly surmise
"...because they don't know either" but rather because YOU, Phil Innes,
are the topic of this thread, a fact which is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of
your being immature, ignorant, stupid, evasive, obscure, facetious and
vindictive. Oh, and moronic. How could I forget that one?

Are you all really nutz!@?

No, but I know someone who is, and his name is in the subject heading
which Mr. Macon chose....

Maybe if you tell each other you aren't then it
will be true, and then you can all pretend together and it will be lovely!


Maybe if you went away instead of habitually inflicting your immature,
ignorant, stupid, evasive, obscure, facetious, vindictive and moronic
personality upon us all, that will be lovlier still!

Just a thought.

Put it in the background, there, and throw it the occasional glance.

Meantime, do you think its fair to play chess by the rules or not?

What's this? More diversionary tactics? Why introduce this here? BTW
spelling "its" that way is the possessive variety. In this case, it
should be "it's". You must do really well at HLAS.


That is
the 'technical basis' of the discussion to which, and I excuse you
personally for not answering it since no one else is honest enough to do so
either, we certainly have not disagreed since there is no one here I can
respond to.


I'm sorry, but the above "sentence" seems to be another prime example
of authentic Innes gibberish. It makes no sense at all.

Mark Houlsby

Mike Murray wrote:

On 15 Dec 2006 07:38:22 -0800, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:

Chess One wrote:

What a bunch of ******s!

I must admit that wanking may be an area in which you are an expert.

Now, let's be even-handed about this.

LOL!! Good one!

Chess One wrote:

Liar

Nice to see you at last admitting that you are a liar.
Not that there was any doubt after I posted the mesaage-ID
of your post that you claimed I made up.

- you posted 500 words of abuse

*after* I posted some perfectly polite material in a purely
technical discussion, and *after* you becaame aggressive and
rude for no apparent reason other than my asking you to define
some non-standard terms you were using.

I can provide the messaage-IDs of your posts if needed.

...a Turing Engine was...

Please define the non-standard term "Turing Engine" I can find no
examples of Turing using the term. Why do you refuse to define
your term?

or to look it up

A google search on "Turing Engine" returns 371 hits 73 of which
also contain "chess one" or "Innes." Most of the rest appear
to be people who misrember the proper term or are speakers of
foreign languages. None contain a definition that differs from
the definition of a uring Machine. A google search on "Turing
Machine" returns 644,000 hits...

Guy Macon wrote:
Chess One wrote:

Liar

Nice to see you at last admitting that you are a liar.
Not that there was any doubt after I posted the mesaage-ID
of your post that you claimed I made up.

- you posted 500 words of abuse

*after* I posted some perfectly polite material in a purely
technical discussion, and *after* you becaame aggressive and
rude for no apparent reason other than my asking you to define
some non-standard terms you were using.

I can provide the messaage-IDs of your posts if needed.

...a Turing Engine was...

Please define the non-standard term "Turing Engine" I can find no
examples of Turing using the term. Why do you refuse to define
your term?

Alan Turing's Automatic Computing Engine: The Master Codebreaker's
Struggle to Build the Modern Computer (Hardcover)
by B. Jack Copeland (Editor)
List Price: $129.95
Price: $129.95 & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping.
Details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing





or to look it up

A google search on "Turing Engine" returns 371 hits 73 of which
also contain "chess one" or "Innes." Most of the rest appear
to be people who misrember the proper term or are speakers of
foreign languages. None contain a definition that differs from
the definition of a uring Machine. A google search on "Turing
Machine" returns 644,000 hits...

Guy Macon wrote:
Chess One wrote:

Liar

Nice to see you at last admitting that you are a liar.

?

Not that there was any doubt after I posted the mesaage-ID
of your post that you claimed I made up.

- you posted 500 words of abuse

*after* I posted some perfectly polite material in a purely
technical discussion, and *after* you becaame aggressive and
rude for no apparent reason other than my asking you to define
some non-standard terms you were using.

I can provide the messaage-IDs of your posts if needed.

...a Turing Engine was...

Please define the non-standard term "Turing Engine" I can find no
examples of Turing using the term.

Nonsense. Here is one I found using only one hand:

"This is Turing. I'm in Bletchley Park, and my Ford
Model A won't start. It's the bloody engine, again.
I hope the bloody Yanks lose the damned war, so
we can all drive reliable, German-made cars."

Naturally, only the intellectual elite are aware of this
quote, as it was heavily encrypted, and cleverly
disguised as a mere recording of a Winston Churchill
speech. I decoded it while waiting for Sanny's chess
engine to come up with a move on Easy level, while
Mr. Innes independently decoded the message in a
dream about Shakespeare.


Why do you refuse to define your term?

or to look it up

A google search on "Turing Engine" returns 371 hits 73 of which
also contain "chess one" or "Innes." Most of the rest appear
to be people who misrember the proper term or are speakers of
foreign languages. None contain a definition that differs from
the definition of a uring Machine. A google search on "Turing
Machine" returns 644,000 hits...


That is because you are searching for this term in the
*English*. Try searching for "Turing Engine" in Andean,
which is a local variation of Spanish/Mongolian/Old Indian
languages -- in particular, those where the Bishops are
both hyper-fianchettoed to a3/h3 or a6/h6. Google
is useless here, as it cannot possibly grok the subtle
differences among all these lines; it takes a near-IM to
do that!

-- help bot