"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ps.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:49:50 GMT):

I was involuntarily copied [I did not request it] material from
a group of people 4 years ago who particularly protested who
should write on these chess histories. ... It is interesting to
note the circulation. ... addressed to: Dear Messrs. Blair,
Brennen, ...

_
I did not receive this material.

and yet it is your e-mail address

pi

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

**************
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
_
Again, I'd suggest ignoring all email
from chesstours AKA Larry Evans.
And please be prepared for all of your
correspondence to appear on message
boards and newsgroups, courtesy
Evans and his pet hack Larry Parr.
_
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
********************"
- Neil Brennen (24 May 2006 02:45:27 -0700)
_
_
Does Larry Parr have any more to say on this matter
of GM Evans supposedly being called a "hack" by Neil
Brennen?

_
Snipping the Larry Parr quote,
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:35:42 GMT):

One infers the other, no?

_
I see no reason to "infer" that GM Evans is considered
by Neil Brennen to be a "hack" from the NB note above.

Louis Blair sees no reason to infer it and sees no reason not to infer it.
Welcome to Blair-City!

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:35:42 GMT):

What more did you want Louis?

_
An admission from Larry Parr that, in the Neil Brennen note,
the word, "hack", was not used to describe GM Evans.

Here we an interesting possibility, that one can need a 'hack', or a pet
hack, and yet not be one. Louis Blair is apparently of Brennen's opinion.

"'hack' was the word [Neil Brennen] used to
describe the 5-time U.S. Champion and Hall
of Famer." - Larry Parr (20 May 2006
02:04:29 -0700)

Brennens genius extends to recommending to an editor that the chessic worth
of a 5 times US champion is beyond any consideration, and that those who
would propose the contrary, especially Larry Parr are therefore hacks.

This is almost as amusing as reading Brennan's take on Chess Bitch, and
'woman's stuff' yikes, 2 subjects, GM chess knowledge and females, for
which it is arguable that he knows anything whatever, and who in any case,
writes in such a loose style as to make every suggestion of intent he
writes, with the same clarity as his ability to write to any chess subject.

Lovely Louis continues to worry over this equivocation, to the neglect of
missing entirely the fatuous suppositions of he who made it.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
Here we an interesting possibility, that one can need a 'hack', or a pet
hack, and yet not be one. Louis Blair is apparently of Brennen's opinion.

An unusually bizarre example of Innes-logic (and that's saying
something!). What other scenarios can we envision:

1. Phil feels the need for canine companionship. He wonders: "Can I
need a dog, or a pet dog, and yet not be one?"
2. Phil wants to dig a hole in the ground, but has no proper tool for
the job. He asks himself: "Can I need a shovel, and yet not be one?"
3. Phil gets an irresistible urge for an ice-cream soda. He goes to a
soda fountain, but the soda jerk is nowhere to be seen. Phil says to
himself, "How can I need a jerk, and yet not be one?"
4. Hiking through rough, roadless terrain, Phil finds his equipment
too heavy, and regrets that he did not bring a suitable pack animal,
such as a mule or donkey. He laments, "How can I need an ass, and yet
not be one?"

snip remaining Innestwaddle

I wrote (7 Jun 2006 23:06:55 -0700):
Phil Innes repeatedly chose to reproduce the one word,
"meaningless", without including the rest of the sentence. If
Phil Innes had reproduced that comment, it would have been
easily apparent that Phil Innes was lifting that word out of the
Vince Hart sentences and attaching it to PI's own theories
about Vince Hart's thinking.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:54:12 GMT):

Which was zero. Hart invited me to make a contribution on the
basis of a set of standards, which he then termed 'meaningless'
[see below]. Which presumably means that the matter is
dismissed as without sense, or that the person cannot ascribe
a meaning of their own to it. shrug
_
What is it that L. Blair doesn't understand?
...
"... dismissing others' as 'meaningless,' ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:40:22 GMT)
_
"You dismissed Pehme's site and his commissioned
article as 'meaningless'." - Phil Innes (Sat, 01 Apr 2006
00:12:42 GMT)
_
"when I wrote to that subjct [of general standards
Vinny] dismissed it as 'meaningless'" - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:52:20 GMT)

_
I do not understand what Phil Innes thinks he accomplishes by
repeatedly snipping the actual Vince Hart quotes that I have
provided. It is not much trouble to restore them so that others
can easily compare the Phil Innes description with what Vince
Hart actually wrote:
_
"... The fact that you approve of your own
motives and disapprove of others' motives
is meaningless ..." - Vince Hart
(28 Mar 2006 09:47:07 -0800)
_
"Please stop misrepresenting my position Phil.
As I explained, I maintain that your claim that
you are the only one who cares about certain
issues is meaningless (although 'is a load of
crap' may be a more accurate description of
my position)." - Vince Hart (29 Mar 2006
08:34:50 -0800
_
By the way, the Vince Hart invitation was AFTER all of the Vince
Hart and Phil Innes notes above.
_
"OK Phil. I'll ask. What might you consider
a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
06:15:49 -0700)
_
Here is some of the subsequent discussion:
_
"To define my terms: A standard is a behavior which
supports the activity undertaken, and relates to all
parties, and is an electable ethical code.
_
We might discuss standards which relate to sexism
in chess writing from the point of view of those who
do see evidence of sexism in writing as oppressive
_
I would propose three prime constituencies -
(a) women, (b) children, and also a standard of (c)
governance.
_
Just to be clear, this is for what prospers /them/ that
is, those constituencies identified to suffer from a lack
of standard, or hinders them from participation in chess.
The category of governance as it relates to chess is
discussed by the same means, what aids or ails us,
from the perspective of /the chess player/.
_
Are you interested in conducting such a conversation?"
- Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:17:03 GMT)
_
_
"I am still not sure what the subject of the conversation
would be. Please give me an example of the type of
standard that you are interested in discussing Phil."
- Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006 10:17:41 -0700)
_
_
"Vinny, you should read what I wrote again, and ask
more specific questions. What did you specifically not
understand, or what would you like to make as a
standard? It s a straightforward process, and if neither
of us like to read about sexism, or child abuse, or
non-representation of chess players generally, let us go
forward." - Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:45:59 GMT)
_
_
"No Phil. I am asking you what you would like to make
as a standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
that don't help me to determine whether this is a
discussion worth pursuing.
_
As I recall Phil, you said that I was 'carefully avoiding any
question of general standards.' You said that I avoided
'ask[ing] what other people might consider a standard.'
Now I am asking you to give me an example of what you
would propose as a standard. Can you answer?" - Vince
Hart (3 Apr 2006 13:23:28 -0700)
_
_
"I just don't fundertstand your expressions. I want you to
be specific if you want to enter a converstion from your
point of view. I alrady offered you a basis of entry - and I
am quite clearly not interested in being the subject of a
one-sided interogation.
_
I am asking you what you would like to make as a
standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
_
But more specific than yours! Why did you skip EVERY
category and item I mention? huh? Its you who are being
vague, but you are used to projecting your vagueness
onto others. You have nothing to say yourself, even
though I offer you a basis for a discussion.
...
Neither do you state what it is that would constitute 'a
conversation worth pursuing'.
...
You are not in the least capable of writing what you think,
since I gave you the opportunity to respond to a
prospectus; 3 specific items - and if you would like to talk
about them.
_
But I waste my time with you who cannot mention
anything about their own orientation, or bother to respond,
even after all this writing, to my proposition.
_
So - what a waste of time you are!@ Meanwhile I will
continue to address this subject without you." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:14:53 GMT)
_
_
"You told me to ask specific questions Phil. Here is my
question. Can you give me an example of what you would
propose as a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
15:15:23 -0700)
_
_
"... like it or not ... nobody appears to be taking your
suggestion [of addressing what consitutes a standard]
seriously. ...
...
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup, about
'standards of public decency to children and women'. ..."
- David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
"Vinny ... can't acknowledge ... the range of subjects I
suggested, or that an essentially decency of any material
needs be assessed primarily by the insulted constituency,
whether women, children, or all chess players generally."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
"I have asked you for an example of your idea of
respectable standards Phil and you have refused to
answer. ..." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 06:56:27 -0700)
_
_
"I have refused to indulge your prurient interests further -
I did answer, and asked if these things interested you.
David Kane was kind enough to /notice/ my answer, and
said he would not like to answer them in a public
newsgroup.
_
So you protests are entirely ... wrong." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:07:59 GMT)
_
_
"I am not protesting anything Phil. I am asking a question
about your idea of respectable standards. I did not realize
that you could not articulate your standards without
becoming prurient." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 08:43:00 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your further response. I hope it is now clear
who cares for what, and what makes for a waste of time.
Since Vinny has now twice accused me of not writing to
standards, and here ignores the opportunity to correct
himself by way of David Kane having noticed it, as I wrote
before, I will continue the subject with people who have
declared themselves able to do so themselves, and which
in my estimation has nothing to do with writings here."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:07:01 GMT)
_
_
"your obvious lack of credibility is a big reason [for why
I am not interested enough in the subject to engage it].
Vince deserves some kind of award for the patience he's
shown you. But I predict that you will fail to make a
meaningful contribution on this topic." - David Kane
(Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:25:16 -0700)
_
_
"I have repeatedly given you an opportunity to give me an
example of the kind of standard that you would propose.
Until you do so, I stand by my statement that you are not
writing about standards; you are merely writing about
writing about standards. David Kane has noticed that you
have not made a meaningful contribution to the conversation,
which does not seem to call for any correction on my part."
- Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 16:16:23 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your commentary David. You personally
declined to make any contribution to it! And Vinny has
not yet noticed it to be worth addressing. Am I to discuss
a subject with people who don't care for the topic?
_
Why should I care that I lack any 'credability' with people
who themselves can't write about the topic itself? You all
had a choice, but you personalised it to prefer scandals
to standards." - Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:22:28 GMT)
_
_
"I am offering to write about standards! And I did suggest
a basis for such a conversation. Now, accept it by
engaging it, or make your own counter-suggestion."
- Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:30:26 GMT)
_
_
"You not writing about standards. You are merely
offering to write about standards if someone else will do it
first.
_
That is why you have no credibility." - Vince Hart
(5 Apr 2006 06:49:20 -0700)

While looking at that old Innes-Hart-Kane-Kingston-Brennen
discussion, I came across part that deserves separate
attention:
_
"... I am not interested in the cut and deplore routine.
If you have something to say to standards of public
decency to children and women, David, write them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:40:30 GMT)
_
_
_
" I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing.
_
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup,
about 'standards of public decency to children
and women'." - David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006
16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
_
" I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
_
I am not your boy! I already wrote a basis for an
approach - but no one seems actually interested
enough in the subject to engage it." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
_
"It appears Mr. Innes is talking to himself again.
And what's more, he's taking offense at his own
words. How long until he accuses himself of
self-stalking?" - Neil Brennen (4 Apr 2006
16:53:19 -0700)

I wrote (6 Jun 2006 20:05:22 -0700):
"Neil Brennen went so far as to suggest that
Mr. Hoffman ignore legitimate questions from
'hacks' like Larry Evans and yours truly. Yes,
'hack' was the word he used to describe the
5-time U.S. Champion and Hall of Famer."
- Larry Parr (20 May 2006 02:04:29 -0700)
_
_
"I have [checked my own emails]. I'll even post
it he
_
**************
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
_
Again, I'd suggest ignoring all email
from chesstours AKA Larry Evans.
And please be prepared for all of your
correspondence to appear on message
boards and newsgroups, courtesy
Evans and his pet hack Larry Parr.
_
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
********************"
- Neil Brennen (24 May 2006 02:45:27 -0700)
_
_
Does Larry Parr have any more to say on this matter
of GM Evans supposedly being called a "hack" by Neil
Brennen?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:35:42 GMT):
One infers the other, no?
_
I wrote (7 Jun 2006 23:52:21 -0700):
I see no reason to "infer" that GM Evans is considered
by Neil Brennen to be a "hack" from the NB note above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:20:36 GMT):

Louis Blair sees no reason to infer it and sees no reason not
to infer it. Welcome to Blair-City!

_
My understanding of human communication has been that if
one sees no reason to infer something, THAT is a reason to
choose not to infer it.
_
In any event, Larry Parr told us:
_
"'hack' was the word [Neil Brennen] used to
describe the 5-time U.S. Champion and Hall
of Famer." - Larry Parr (20 May 2006
02:04:29 -0700)
_
In the above Neil Brennen quote, the word, "hack", was not
used to describe GM Evans.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:20:36 GMT):

Here we an interesting possibility, that one can need a 'hack',
or a pet hack, and yet not be one.

_
The word, "need", is not in the Neil Brennen quote above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:20:36 GMT):

Brennens genius extends to recommending to an editor that
the chessic worth of a 5 times US champion is beyond any
consideration, and that those who would propose the contrary,
especially Larry Parr are therefore hacks.

_
More fantasy from Phil Innes. In the above Neil Brennen quote,
there is no assertion about "the chessic worth" of GM Evans
being "beyond any consideration" and there is no assertion
about "those who would propose the contrary" being "therefore
hacks."

Brennan writes an extensive list of his own misunderstandings since this is
all he is capable of, and if he can't misunderstand it, he will rewrite it
for you, sometimes in quotation marks and sometimes in paraphrasing that
would insult a 13 year old.

His negative ambitions surmount even Taylor Kingston's who merely obsesses
over Evans and Keene and writes little e-mail campaigns looking for dirt for
years and years!

Brunann is entirely capable of suggesting what a woman should write in her
memoire about sexism in chess, [ROFL!] and also recommending to editor
Hoffman that correspondance from the likes of a 5 times US Champion are
negligable compared with his own judgement of such matters!

Such commentaries go UNNOTICED HERE by Kingston and Blair-bot and Bot-Brain
[let us suppozzzzzzzz ]

Many things below are outright lies. I mean, out and out lies.

This guy is a proven liar, distorter and stalker - who is capable of writing
anything but the truth.

Phil Innes

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
wrote:

Phil Innes is a model intellect, knowledgeable in
the classics and in literature.

There are indeed many things that Mr. Innes can teach Mr. Parr. Here
are a few of them. They can all be traced to Mr. Innes' newsgroup
posts:

- The King James translators chose the texts that constitute
the Bible.

- A weak paraphrase of a statement by George Orwell is the same as a
well-known "quotation".

- Old English was spoken into the 18th century.

- Early Christians were "animists".

- The author of the Shakespeare canon believed in "non-Pauline
Christianity".

- Drug testing in sports violates the unlawful search and seizure
amendment to the US Constitution..

- Virginia Woolf had a grandchild, and Phil spoke to him, despite Woolf
dying childless.

- There is a "British Language", a tongue with a "negative case", and
strange words like "campel", "lingusit", "secuter", etc.

- The words "love" and "leave" are the same in Russian, so one could
translate "love it or leave it" without changing the verb.

- The chess term "pawn and two moves" means 'play with the Black
pieces'.

- Philip Keith Innes was "almost an IM", despite not getting over BCF
145 or USCF 2200.

- "In short: I have not found a single first-hand refererence nor
artifact which would verify that the event [1904 Cambridge Springs
International Chess Tournament] ever took place." - Phil Innes

- Only one of King Lear's three daughters was female.

- "Who was it again who developed the basis for the OED - some 50% of
it.
Wasn't it an American medical doctor?" - Phil Innes

- "It is unknown how the play was received since Shakespeare
dissapeared (sic) from
view for several hundred years after his death, along with his plays,
and reporting is unreliable. "

I forgot this one:

"... Gilbert and Sullivan! (two English twits,
no longer celebrated in any actual
performance) ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:21:28 -0500)

I wrote (7 Jun 2006 23:06:55 -0700):
Phil Innes repeatedly chose to reproduce the one word,
"meaningless", without including the rest of the sentence. If
Phil Innes had reproduced that comment, it would have been
easily apparent that Phil Innes was lifting that word out of the
Vince Hart sentences and attaching it to PI's own theories
about Vince Hart's thinking.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:54:12 GMT):

Which was zero. Hart invited me to make a contribution on the
basis of a set of standards, which he then termed 'meaningless'
[see below]. Which presumably means that the matter is
dismissed as without sense, or that the person cannot ascribe
a meaning of their own to it. shrug
_
What is it that L. Blair doesn't understand?
...
"... dismissing others' as 'meaningless,' ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:40:22 GMT)
_
"You dismissed Pehme's site and his commissioned
article as 'meaningless'." - Phil Innes (Sat, 01 Apr 2006
00:12:42 GMT)
_
"when I wrote to that subjct [of general standards
Vinny] dismissed it as 'meaningless'" - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:52:20 GMT)

_
I do not understand what Phil Innes thinks he accomplishes by
repeatedly snipping the actual Vince Hart quotes that I have
provided. It is not much trouble to restore them so that others
can easily compare the Phil Innes description with what Vince
Hart actually wrote:
_
"... The fact that you approve of your own
motives and disapprove of others' motives
is meaningless ..." - Vince Hart
(28 Mar 2006 09:47:07 -0800)
_
"Please stop misrepresenting my position Phil.
As I explained, I maintain that your claim that
you are the only one who cares about certain
issues is meaningless (although 'is a load of
crap' may be a more accurate description of
my position)." - Vince Hart (29 Mar 2006
08:34:50 -0800
_
By the way, the Vince Hart invitation was AFTER all of the Vince
Hart and Phil Innes notes above.
_
"OK Phil. I'll ask. What might you consider
a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
06:15:49 -0700)
_
Here is some of the subsequent discussion:
_
"To define my terms: A standard is a behavior which
supports the activity undertaken, and relates to all
parties, and is an electable ethical code.
_
We might discuss standards which relate to sexism
in chess writing from the point of view of those who
do see evidence of sexism in writing as oppressive
_
I would propose three prime constituencies -
(a) women, (b) children, and also a standard of (c)
governance.
_
Just to be clear, this is for what prospers /them/ that
is, those constituencies identified to suffer from a lack
of standard, or hinders them from participation in chess.
The category of governance as it relates to chess is
discussed by the same means, what aids or ails us,
from the perspective of /the chess player/.
_
Are you interested in conducting such a conversation?"
- Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:17:03 GMT)
_
_
"I am still not sure what the subject of the conversation
would be. Please give me an example of the type of
standard that you are interested in discussing Phil."
- Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006 10:17:41 -0700)
_
_
"Vinny, you should read what I wrote again, and ask
more specific questions. What did you specifically not
understand, or what would you like to make as a
standard? It s a straightforward process, and if neither
of us like to read about sexism, or child abuse, or
non-representation of chess players generally, let us go
forward." - Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:45:59 GMT)
_
_
"No Phil. I am asking you what you would like to make
as a standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
that don't help me to determine whether this is a
discussion worth pursuing.
_
As I recall Phil, you said that I was 'carefully avoiding any
question of general standards.' You said that I avoided
'ask[ing] what other people might consider a standard.'
Now I am asking you to give me an example of what you
would propose as a standard. Can you answer?" - Vince
Hart (3 Apr 2006 13:23:28 -0700)
_
_
"I just don't fundertstand your expressions. I want you to
be specific if you want to enter a converstion from your
point of view. I alrady offered you a basis of entry - and I
am quite clearly not interested in being the subject of a
one-sided interogation.
_
I am asking you what you would like to make as a
standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
_
But more specific than yours! Why did you skip EVERY
category and item I mention? huh? Its you who are being
vague, but you are used to projecting your vagueness
onto others. You have nothing to say yourself, even
though I offer you a basis for a discussion.
...
Neither do you state what it is that would constitute 'a
conversation worth pursuing'.
...
You are not in the least capable of writing what you think,
since I gave you the opportunity to respond to a
prospectus; 3 specific items - and if you would like to talk
about them.
_
But I waste my time with you who cannot mention
anything about their own orientation, or bother to respond,
even after all this writing, to my proposition.
_
So - what a waste of time you are!@ Meanwhile I will
continue to address this subject without you." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:14:53 GMT)
_
_
"You told me to ask specific questions Phil. Here is my
question. Can you give me an example of what you would
propose as a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
15:15:23 -0700)
_
_
"... like it or not ... nobody appears to be taking your
suggestion [of addressing what consitutes a standard]
seriously. ...
...
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup, about
'standards of public decency to children and women'. ..."
- David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
"... Vinny ... can't acknowledge ... the range of subjects I
suggested, or that an essentially decency of any material
needs be assessed primarily by the insulted constituency,
whether women, children, or all chess players generally. ..."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
"I have asked you for an example of your idea of
respectable standards Phil and you have refused to
answer. ..." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 06:56:27 -0700)
_
_
"I have refused to indulge your prurient interests further -
I did answer, and asked if these things interested you.
David Kane was kind enough to /notice/ my answer, and
said he would not like to answer them in a public
newsgroup.
_
So you protests are entirely ... wrong." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:07:59 GMT)
_
_
"I am not protesting anything Phil. I am asking a question
about your idea of respectable standards. I did not realize
that you could not articulate your standards without
becoming prurient." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 08:43:00 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your further response. I hope it is now clear
who cares for what, and what makes for a waste of time.
Since Vinny has now twice accused me of not writing to
standards, and here ignores the opportunity to correct
himself by way of David Kane having noticed it, as I wrote
before, I will continue the subject with people who have
declared themselves able to do so themselves, and which
in my estimation has nothing to do with writings here."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:07:01 GMT)
_
_
"... your obvious lack of credibility is a big reason [for why
I am not interested enough in the subject to engage it].
Vince deserves some kind of award for the patience he's
shown you. But I predict that you will fail to make a
meaningful contribution on this topic." - David Kane
(Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:25:16 -0700)
_
_
"I have repeatedly given you an opportunity to give me an
example of the kind of standard that you would propose.
Until you do so, I stand by my statement that you are not
writing about standards; you are merely writing about
writing about standards. David Kane has noticed that you
have not made a meaningful contribution to the conversation,
which does not seem to call for any correction on my part."
- Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 16:16:23 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your commentary David. You personally
declined to make any contribution to it! And Vinny has
not yet noticed it to be worth addressing. Am I to discuss
a subject with people who don't care for the topic?
_
Why should I care that I lack any 'credability' with people
who themselves can't write about the topic itself? You all
had a choice, but you personalised it to prefer scandals
to standards." - Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:22:28 GMT)
_
_
"... I am offering to write about standards! And I did suggest
a basis for such a conversation. Now, accept it by
engaging it, or make your own counter-suggestion. ..."
- Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:30:26 GMT)
_
_
"... You not writing about standards. You are merely
offering to write about standards if someone else will do it
first.
_
That is why you have no credibility." - Vince Hart
(5 Apr 2006 06:49:20 -0700)

While looking at that old Innes-Hart-Kane-Kingston-Brennen
discussion, I came across part that deserves separate
attention:
_
"... I am not interested in the cut and deplore routine.
If you have something to say to standards of public
decency to children and women, David, write them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:40:30 GMT)
_
_
_
"...
I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing.
_
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup,
about 'standards of public decency to children
and women'. ..." - David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006
16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
_
"...
I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
_
I am not your boy! I already wrote a basis for an
approach - but no one seems actually interested
enough in the subject to engage it. ..." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
_
"It appears Mr. Innes is talking to himself again.
And what's more, he's taking offense at his own
words. How long until he accuses himself of
self-stalking?" - Neil Brennen (4 Apr 2006
16:53:19 -0700)

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:
Here we an interesting possibility, that one can need a 'hack', or a pet
hack, and yet not be one. Louis Blair is apparently of Brennen's opinion.

An unusually bizarre example of Innes-logic (and that's saying
something!). What other scenarios can we envision:

IM Kingston, the paper GM-slayer, speculates!

But he runs from the truth which he cut in Parr's challenge to his extended
range of 'speculations' and as below, you will see the honesty of this man's
answers, since he cut issues of misrepresentation as of no matter!

Taylor Kingston talks like a fighter, but dare not be one

Phil Innes

1. Phil feels the need for canine companionship. He wonders: "Can I
need a dog, or a pet dog, and yet not be one?"
2. Phil wants to dig a hole in the ground, but has no proper tool for
the job. He asks himself: "Can I need a shovel, and yet not be one?"
3. Phil gets an irresistible urge for an ice-cream soda. He goes to a
soda fountain, but the soda jerk is nowhere to be seen. Phil says to
himself, "How can I need a jerk, and yet not be one?"
4. Hiking through rough, roadless terrain, Phil finds his equipment
too heavy, and regrets that he did not bring a suitable pack animal,
such as a mule or donkey. He laments, "How can I need an ass, and yet
not be one?"

snip remaining Innestwaddle