Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:25:52 GMT):
... Snipping a post then complaining about it is
apparently [help bot]'s measure of fairness. ...
_
I wrote (13 Mar 2006 06:51:22 -0800):
is Phil Innes confident that he himself does not paraphrase,
while failing to quote what he is paraphrasing?
_
Phill Innes wrote (Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:56:25 GMT):
Confident? Do you mean for Louis Blair personally, that
as a prime speculator of things, you are unable to agree
with anyone on your point, or even feel obliged to say if
you have one, or can bring yourself to state it?

What do you personally think is fair about reporting
Gulko's repression being reported as 'being away from
chess'. Does that strike you as a fair statement? I am
conducting a survey on this topic, to conclude 3 things;
_
a) what people think is fair
b) which people think that
c) how honest anyone is here
_
Of course, you may choose not to reply to the Test,
in which case you will also cease to make impertinent
suggestions on what others should speculate upon,
when you can't be bothered to define your own terms.
_
I wrote (13 Mar 2006 15:53:07 -0800):
Perhaps, "OZ HAS SPOKEN", but that does not mean
that any of the rest of us are compelled to obey. I see
no reason why I should be obliged to comment on
Gulko when I have written nothing on that subject.
_
I, on the other hand, am writing about Phil Innes - HIS
OWN BEHAVIOR and the degree to which it conforms
to the standards that he advocates for others. Phil
Innes is, of course, free to refrain from answering,
but then he runs the risk of people thinking that he
is (to borrow a phrase)
_
"... now very shy of that subject ..." - Phil
Innes (Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:37:05 GMT)
_
Again, it was Phil Innes, who decided to raise the issue
of complaining about something without quoting it. Lets
consider an example of Phil Innes behavior and see how
it measures up. ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:26:04 GMT):

Blair ... doesn't feel 'compelled' to define his terms.

_
If Phil Innes has trouble with ordinary words in English he
should consult a dictionary.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:26:04 GMT):

Blair ... ADMITS he cuts and pastes whatever he wants
together to emulate a sequence.

_
Phil Innes, of course, produces no quote of me saying
that I cut and paste whatever I want together to emulate
a sequence. He has no such quote, but don't hold
your breath waiting for Phil Innes to admit that.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:26:04 GMT):

If Louis Blair has a point, sharpen it?

_
Phil Innes gets upset when someone "complain"s
about one of his notes without quoting it, but Phil
Innes is quite willing to do this sort of thing himself.
The "emulate" stuff above is an example. Below
is another example where Phil Innes complained
about something without quoting it. See his
Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:49:10 GMT note below
(where Phil Innes tried to rewrite the past). It
seems to me that Phil Innes should apologize
for these lapses if he wants people to take his
own objections as sincere.
_
_
"... The blacklist defenders note that GM Larry
Evans is now off the list, which appears true. But it
is equally true that it took months of attacks to open
this breach. ..." - Larry Parr (22 Dec 2005
22:28:55 -0800)
_
_
"... I searched on 'Evans' and can't make head nor
tales of the result. Even clicking on a minute icon
revealed the following:-
_
Item#: ru28
Reg. Price: $24.95
USCF Member Price: $24.95
Detailed Description...........
by: Various, 148pp. Hardcover. In Russian (2002)
...
... Maybe Larry Evans is mentioned somewhere - since
the USCF search engine found it, but not in the text
available to read. ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 23 Dec 2005
12:56:34 GMT)
_
_
"... anyone who can offer the esoteric title above is
casting their fly at a very narrow stream of interest,
while ignoring the main course. ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,
23 Dec 2005 13:34:31 GMT)
_
_
"Phil Innes reproduced one item from the Foreign
Language section of uscfsales - not exactly a
representative sample." - Louis Blair (23 Dec 2005
15:14:22 -0800)
_
_
"Nor intended to be. Nor interested in arguing the
point if it s intended to be. But if someone looked
something up they would be puzzled was the point.
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:13:41 GMT)
_
_
"Not the only point. ... Phil Innes used 'Item#: ru28'
as an indication that uscfsales 'is casting their fly
at a very narrow stream of interest, while ignoring
the main course.' My opinion is that an extremely
nonrepresentative sample (such as that presented
by Phil Innes) does not justify such a conclusion."
- Louis Blair (23 Dec 2005 19:36:39 -0800)
_
_
"... It works like this:-
_
When Louis asks me for a specific, for a SAMPLE
or EXAMPLE, he then turns around to say that my
sample which I identified as the first thing ocuring
in a search [and which sounds like a missing Russian
submarine, the infamous ru28] is not representative
of whatever he had in mind in the first place, ..."
- Phil Innes (Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:49:10 GMT)
_
Phil Innes produced no quote of a supposed "SAMPLE
or EXAMPLE" request from me. Of course, there was
also no had-in-mind quote either.
_
"This is fiction, and Phil Innes should apologize
immediately for this rewrite of reality. When Phil
Innes decided to write [about Item#: ru28,] it was
not in response to any request from me.
...
And, of course, I did not react by saying that
'Item#: ru28' was not representative of something
I 'had in mind in the first place'. I wrote that one
item from the Foreign Language section of
uscfsales is not a representative sample. Obviously,
I meant that it was not a representative sample
of what is sold by uscfsales." - Louis Blair (3 Jan 2006
21:14:35 -0800)

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...

Blair ... doesn't feel 'compelled' to define his terms.

_
If Phil Innes has trouble with ordinary words in English he
should consult a dictionary.

Let me take that as agreement. Otherwise Louis is going to go on forever,
first it was 'fair', now its his own term 'compel'.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:26:04 GMT):

Blair ... ADMITS he cuts and pastes whatever he wants
together to emulate a sequence.

_
Phil Innes, of course, produces no quote of me saying
that I cut and paste whatever I want together to emulate
a sequence. He has no such quote, but don't hold
your breath waiting for Phil Innes to admit that.

ROFL. Louis admits that he cuts and pastes out of any context, but he did
not actually say ".... to emulate a sequence." I did.

If Louis Blair wants to avoid the very terms he himself uses
paraphrastically, like 'compel', maybe he could find someone else to write
with, possibly Zed, and he could also practice selecting a topic, then
writing about it. Not people! A topic.

All them words are in the dictionary, and none intended unusually.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

(,,)


Orwell thought they were pretty much ******s, and he should know, went to
Eton... Any fishing where you are? Hard to get an honest mackrul here, arf
a pound hardly worth frying.


Throw it back & yes me Dutch patron had great success recently, several
'snapper' caught just like that from a sailboat on 't harbour - he's now
talking buy boat (he can afford it) so impressed was he. Gov. just
banned commercial fishing in harbour 'cos of residual pollution from
Union-Carbide & co but this is only relevant bottom-feeders not
mid-streamers. More fish in harbour = more sharks too..

PS: Interesting, Microsoft don't have '******s' in their dictionary. They
don't have numeracy either, but they do have innumeracy. Sign of the times


Talking of Pajero's - I believe that's Spanish for ****** also it's
worth $50 @ your local sperm-bank. Yeah - I know we all do it but we
don't like being reminded etc. Mind you, next time you're bothered by a
persistent 'stiffy' you might consider the Baden-Powell rule No 1 -
thrust offending member into beaker of ice-cold vater..

Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:25:52 GMT):
... Snipping a post then complaining about it is
apparently [help bot]'s measure of fairness. ...

_
If Phil Innes does not like people complaining about
his notes without quoting them, he might consider
the example that he himself sets:
_
"Louis Blair admits that he cuts and pastes
people's comments and doesn't feel obliged
to ever answer for his own actions here."
- Phil Innes (14 Mar 2006 13:08:33 GMT)
_
Phil Innes, of course, produced no quote of me saying
that I don't feel obliged to ever answer for my own
actions here. (As for cutting and pasting people's
comments, Phil Innes does that himself.)
_
"Louis Blair ever wants people to comment on
other people's statements, and only that."
- Phil Innes (14 Mar 2006 13:08:33 GMT)
_
Phil Innes, of course, produced no quote of me saying
that I want people to comment "only" on other people's
statements.
_
"Blair ... ADMITS he cuts and pastes whatever
he wants together to emulate a sequence."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:26:04 GMT)
_
Phil Innes, of course, produced no quote of me saying
that I cut and paste whatever I want together to emulate
a sequence.
_
And here is a somewhat longer incident where Phil
Innes (on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:49:10 GMT) invented
a bunch of nonsense, and of course had no quotes
to back up his complaint.
_
_
"... The blacklist defenders note that GM Larry
Evans is now off the list, which appears true. But it
is equally true that it took months of attacks to open
this breach. ..." - Larry Parr (22 Dec 2005
22:28:55 -0800)
_
_
"... I searched on 'Evans' and can't make head nor
tales of the result. Even clicking on a minute icon
revealed the following:-
_
Item#: ru28
Reg. Price: $24.95
USCF Member Price: $24.95
Detailed Description...........
by: Various, 148pp. Hardcover. In Russian (2002)
...
... Maybe Larry Evans is mentioned somewhere - since
the USCF search engine found it, but not in the text
available to read. ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 23 Dec 2005
12:56:34 GMT)
_
_
"... anyone who can offer the esoteric title above is
casting their fly at a very narrow stream of interest,
while ignoring the main course. ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,
23 Dec 2005 13:34:31 GMT)
_
_
"Phil Innes reproduced one item from the Foreign
Language section of uscfsales - not exactly a
representative sample." - Louis Blair (23 Dec 2005
15:14:22 -0800)
_
_
"Nor intended to be. Nor interested in arguing the
point if it s intended to be. But if someone looked
something up they would be puzzled was the point.
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:13:41 GMT)
_
_
"Not the only point. ... Phil Innes used 'Item#: ru28'
as an indication that uscfsales 'is casting their fly
at a very narrow stream of interest, while ignoring
the main course.' My opinion is that an extremely
nonrepresentative sample (such as that presented
by Phil Innes) does not justify such a conclusion."
- Louis Blair (23 Dec 2005 19:36:39 -0800)
_
_
"... It works like this:-
_
When Louis asks me for a specific, for a SAMPLE
or EXAMPLE, he then turns around to say that my
sample which I identified as the first thing ocuring
in a search [and which sounds like a missing Russian
submarine, the infamous ru28] is not representative
of whatever he had in mind in the first place, ..."
- Phil Innes (Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:49:10 GMT)
_
Phil Innes produced no quote of a supposed "SAMPLE
or EXAMPLE" request from me. Of course, there was
also no had-in-mind quote either.
_
"This is fiction, and Phil Innes should apologize
immediately for this rewrite of reality. When Phil
Innes decided to write [about Item#: ru28,] it was
not in response to any request from me.
...
And, of course, I did not react by saying that
'Item#: ru28' was not representative of something
I 'had in mind in the first place'. I wrote that one
item from the Foreign Language section of
uscfsales is not a representative sample. Obviously,
I meant that it was not a representative sample
of what is sold by uscfsales." - Louis Blair (3 Jan 2006
21:14:35 -0800)

Phil Innes wrote:

... Louis Blair admits that he cuts and pastes people's
comments and doesn't feel obliged to ever answer for
his own actions here. ...


Louis Blair responds:

"Phil Innes, of course, produces no quote of me saying
that I don't feel obliged to ever answer for my own
actions here. He has no such quote, but don't hold
your breath waiting for Phil Innes to admit that."


Correction: PI did not claim to have a quote of something Louis
Blair wrote; on the contrary, he made an observation. The difference
between having a quote and making an observation may well be difficult
for quote bots to grasp, but humans and Celtoids do it all the time.
As a help bot, I have been programmed to simulate an understanding of
humans, which explains why I "see" what LB misses.

I'm curious -- what was Goodman's "crime"? I mean, did he get a date
wrong or misspell "John Nunn"? Write Patrick "Wolf" or maybe Tony
"Mile's"? Too many diagram errors?
Co-write a book with Keene??!

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:

Throw it back & yes me Dutch patron had great success recently, several
'snapper' caught just like that from a sailboat on 't harbour - he's now
talking buy boat (he can afford it) so impressed was he. Gov. just
banned commercial fishing in harbour 'cos of residual pollution from
Union-Carbide & co but this is only relevant bottom-feeders not
mid-streamers. More fish in harbour = more sharks too..

Spin or float? We get a red snapper here, with mid-mercury levels. But you
couldn't find a decent bit of Wrasse for love nor money.

PS: Interesting, Microsoft don't have '******s' in their dictionary. They
don't have numeracy either, but they do have innumeracy. Sign of the
times


Talking of Pajero's - I believe that's Spanish for ****** also it's
worth $50 @ your local sperm-bank. Yeah - I know we all do it but we
don't like being reminded etc. Mind you, next time you're bothered by a
persistent 'stiffy' you might consider the Baden-Powell rule No 1 -
thrust offending member into beaker of ice-cold vater..

You've got to watch those boyscout recommendations - I bet he never plunged
himself or you would see more badges for it! In the Swabian Albes they call
it Yodelling.

Playing any chess? I just spent a free 2 weeks on a server and made it to
1598. Beat 2000 player, lost to 600 player, turned out to be IM. For a
change, no evident cheating going on. My usual OTB partner who I have
ignored for a few months, well I called him to play and he was just about to
leave for Barbados or somewhere. Snowing here.

Phil

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil Innes wrote:

... Louis Blair admits that he cuts and pastes people's
comments and doesn't feel obliged to ever answer for
his own actions here. ...


Louis Blair responds:

"Phil Innes, of course, produces no quote of me saying
that I don't feel obliged to ever answer for my own
actions here. He has no such quote, but don't hold
your breath waiting for Phil Innes to admit that."


Correction: PI did not claim to have a quote of something Louis
Blair wrote; on the contrary, he made an observation. The difference
between having a quote and making an observation may well be difficult
for quote bots to grasp, but humans and Celtoids do it all the time.
As a help bot, I have been programmed to simulate an understanding of
humans, which explains why I "see" what LB misses.

for heaven's sake! let us not conspire to agree on anything! i had
determined to dislike you for the entire week

in another newsgroup someone yesterday wrote of how "despicable" it was that
Alekhine wasn't re-assimilated into world chess with more warmth and
timeliness

now, that's honest reporting of one's own views - completely daft, but
honest

anyway, i can hardly wait until Louis responds to his current dilemma. not
only can't he see any need to define his own terms, he is now stuck with
also having to deal with the difference between a quaotationa and an
observation

i think it would be fair - once resolved - to go into very deep waters, and
even examine if what parr said about winter about's quote about keene...

you see where i am headed? but let's not go there! not yet. first we all
agree we understand a few simple words, then we can have a go at using them
in our comments, and if other people say "why, heck, i understand that!"
then let us proceed past our knees to splash around in the lake and see what
happens - maybe we an become flippercanorius*?

brought to you by the mask*d v*rmont*r

"educatin' damn yankees, everywhere"

* from Maurice Weseen's /A Dictionary of American Slang, 1934/

As always, the historian displays his own obsessively perverse understanding
of what other's write, presumably modeled on Louis Blair's peculiar
understanding of what anything can mean; and in this case continues to
deliberately conflate a quotation and a paraphrase from something in another
newsgroup many years ago, and which has nothing to do with chess.

On the subject of chess he recently received a challenge from Rob Mitchell
about a 3-move mate which he has failed to answer. Or why he thought
Elizabethans might be interested in a C17th painting g

I wonder if Brennan can tell the differences among a quote, a paraphrase and
an observation? I shouldn't think so.

Phil Innes



"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

anyway, i can hardly wait until Louis responds to his current dilemma.
not
only can't he see any need to define his own terms, he is now stuck with
also having to deal with the difference between a quaotationa and an
observation

Readers wanting to determine if Innes understands the meaning of the
word "quotation" are invited to search this newsgroup under the words
"Orwell" and "Innes".

Phil Innes wrote (14 Mar 2006 13:08:33 GMT):
... Louis Blair admits that he cuts and pastes people's
comments and doesn't feel obliged to ever answer for
his own actions here. ...
_
I wrote (14 Mar 2006 22:52:59 -0800):
Phil Innes, of course, produces no quote of me saying
that I don't feel obliged to ever answer for my own
actions here. He has no such quote, but don't hold
your breath waiting for Phil Innes to admit that.
_
As for cutting and pasting people's comments, Phil
Innes does that himself.

_
helpbot ):

Correction: PI did not claim to have a quote of something
Louis Blair wrote;

_
helpbot wrote "correction", but his first assertion did not
contradict what I wrote.

_
helpbot ):

on the contrary, he made an observation.

_
How did helpbot know? It is POSSIBLE that Phil
Innes meant:
_
Louis Blair admits that he cuts and pastes
people's comments and Louis Blair doesn't
feel obliged to ever answer for his own actions
here.
_
However, there is also the interpretation:
_
Louis Blair admits that he cuts and pastes
people's comments and Louis Blair admits
that he doesn't feel obliged to ever answer
for his own actions here.
_
In view of the second interpretation it seems
appropriate to me to point out that Phil Innes
produced no quote about answering for actions,
and also to be skeptical that Phil Innes would
promptly and clearly admit that he has no such
quote.
_
It might be added that under either interpretation,
Phil Innes was attacking without evidence. He
identified no specific action of mine that I am
supposedly unwilling to answer for. Apparently,
in this instance (where Phil Innes was the
attacker) he thought it was acceptable to attack
without evidence.
_
Also, Phil Innes did claim that I admitted something.
If he had produced the quote, there would have been
no doubt about what was admitted and what was
not admitted. Apparently, in this instance (where
Phil Innes was the paraphraser) he thought it was
acceptable to paraphase without quoting.