"I myself took the pledge not to respond to me, so I know how he feels.
I have no idea how you feel, because I have never been either so
fixated
on a person that I write about them all the time, even to say who is
not
writing about them...." (Phil Innes)

Note to the Innes-bashers and Parr-bashers:
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.


Chess One wrote:
"g4" wrote in message
...
Phil Innes has retured to our kitchen ... I mean, forum. And true to their
word, neither Neil Brennen nor Larry Tapper have responded to Innes,
just like they pledged. Ditto for Taylor Kingston and James Rynd. Great!

Agree!

There's little or no reason why intelligent men should answer Innes'
foolishness
with foolishness of their own.

O - unintended irony there.

Innes, being deprived of the negative attention that he seeks, is so bored
that he's responding predominantly to the Evans ratpackers.

Sonner or later we will begin talking about chess, and then you can say,
'responding predominantly to the chess ratpackers.'

And guess
what? Even larry parr does not respond to Phil Innes! LOL! Now doesn't
that beat everything.

I myself took the pledge not to respond to me, so I know how he feels. I
have no idea how you feel, because I have never been either so fixated on a
person that I write about them all the time, even to say who is not writing
about them, and neither have I ever hidden the fact of who I am, and always
owned by own stupid opinions.

You lack the balls to own your own comments and to address chess in a chess
newsgroup - you too should take the pledge - its intended for such as
yourself.

Phil Innes

jr wrote:

"I myself took the pledge not to respond to me,


Your tongue may have so sworn, but did you pledge with
your *mind*?


so I know how he feels.
I have no idea how you feel, because I have never been either so
fixated
on a person that I write about them all the time, even to say who is
not
writing about them...." (Phil Innes)

Note to the Innes-bashers and Parr-bashers:
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.


In this case, the term "mad" means insane, luny, crazy even.

But I doubt the gods have any such power. More likely, Innes
was driven mad by his own obsession with defending the
indefensible, and it only *appears* the gods wished to destroy him.

IM Innes' madness can be seen here in his luny comments
about having never been "so fixated", when obviously he has. In
fact, one of the reasons I will, when pressed for time, skip over an
Innes post in some random thread is that he is so fixated as to
ignore the main issue, while ranting incomprehensibly (another
sign of madness) about whoever he is fixated on in an attempt
to defend another ratpacker (usually Larry Parr, for he seems
always in need of special help).

Speaking of madness, what about those anons who purportedly
post here "in praise of" themselves? Is this not hubris, combined
with madness? (Or are these postings themselves merely
imagined, and as such, signs of paranoia?)

One of the ratpackers here frequently lashes out at anons for
their alleged lack of courage, the courage to post under their own
names. Is this fellow "projecting" his own feeling? Or is he so
blinded as to be unable to see that these attacks take down one
of his own closest *allies*, jr? Either way, he is fruit-loopy.

For me, it seems oh so much simpler to killfile Mr. Innes,
rather than try to refrain from ever responding to his many
postings here. The former requires but a single act of the will,
while the latter requires constant willpower over an extended
period of time. But then, why stop there? Why not kill(file) off
all villainous characters, leaving only the good and the just?
Let me play devil's advocate for one second: because, if you
destroy all evils, there will be very little remaining -- a nearly
empty (internet) world, if indeed a peaceful one. Evil is what
DEFINES good, just as the oceans are separated by the land.

In sum, I am not yet ready to killfile Mr. Innes, even though
I realise he is beyond my help.

-- help bot

Sir, you take such offense at me, but write anonymously. You even write
anodyne generic reviews of things as if you were afraid of other opinion's
presence in the corn-fields, and as if you were an angry old testament
censor transposed to the soviet union, with just a little bit of power to
exercise over lesser people.

Take your own advice, and killfile me, or shut your stupid, idiotic, mean,
demeaning, and indeed, very cowardly mouth.

PI


"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

jr wrote:

"I myself took the pledge not to respond to me,


Your tongue may have so sworn, but did you pledge with
your *mind*?


so I know how he feels.
I have no idea how you feel, because I have never been either so
fixated
on a person that I write about them all the time, even to say who is
not
writing about them...." (Phil Innes)

Note to the Innes-bashers and Parr-bashers:
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.


In this case, the term "mad" means insane, luny, crazy even.

But I doubt the gods have any such power. More likely, Innes
was driven mad by his own obsession with defending the
indefensible, and it only *appears* the gods wished to destroy him.

IM Innes' madness can be seen here in his luny comments
about having never been "so fixated", when obviously he has. In
fact, one of the reasons I will, when pressed for time, skip over an
Innes post in some random thread is that he is so fixated as to
ignore the main issue, while ranting incomprehensibly (another
sign of madness) about whoever he is fixated on in an attempt
to defend another ratpacker (usually Larry Parr, for he seems
always in need of special help).

Speaking of madness, what about those anons who purportedly
post here "in praise of" themselves? Is this not hubris, combined
with madness? (Or are these postings themselves merely
imagined, and as such, signs of paranoia?)

One of the ratpackers here frequently lashes out at anons for
their alleged lack of courage, the courage to post under their own
names. Is this fellow "projecting" his own feeling? Or is he so
blinded as to be unable to see that these attacks take down one
of his own closest *allies*, jr? Either way, he is fruit-loopy.

For me, it seems oh so much simpler to killfile Mr. Innes,
rather than try to refrain from ever responding to his many
postings here. The former requires but a single act of the will,
while the latter requires constant willpower over an extended
period of time. But then, why stop there? Why not kill(file) off
all villainous characters, leaving only the good and the just?
Let me play devil's advocate for one second: because, if you
destroy all evils, there will be very little remaining -- a nearly
empty (internet) world, if indeed a peaceful one. Evil is what
DEFINES good, just as the oceans are separated by the land.

In sum, I am not yet ready to killfile Mr. Innes, even though
I realise he is beyond my help.

-- help bot

jr wrote:

Note to the Innes-bashers and Parr-bashers:
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

Yes, but before the endgame they also placed the middlegame.

(BTW, the allusion-illusion of Parr and Innes as "gods" has kept me
laughing for 2 days now!)

wrote:
jr wrote:

Note to the Innes-bashers and Parr-bashers:
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

Yes, but before the endgame they also placed the middlegame.

(BTW, the allusion-illusion of Parr and Innes as "gods" has kept me
laughing for 2 days now!)

"Whom the mad would destroy, first they make gods." -- Bernard Levin

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

wrote:
jr wrote:

Note to the Innes-bashers and Parr-bashers:
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

Yes, but before the endgame they also placed the middlegame.

(BTW, the allusion-illusion of Parr and Innes as "gods" has kept me
laughing for 2 days now!)

"Whom the mad would destroy, first they make gods." -- Bernard Levin

It would keep me laughing too.

But the nameless dork who can't write his own name since he is paranoid,
plus the dork who can because he is insensible, do not understand that the
reference is to /who/ would be destroyed by such obsessionals.

As a Celt, I am as egalitarian as the broad meadow, and need not think any
man more than a man, but not hold any man less than it either.

This is apparently news to the Carolinas and California, who have not quite
groked the fullness of jr's citation.

It is only amusing to note that those who would comment on the Innes Pledge
cannot, as Sir Lawrence H. Parr points out, actually do as they say. Instead
they stay fixated, negatively, since that is all they got at the moment, to
the Star of their imaginings, and man, do they hate any light at all!@ Even
very ordinary light.

Phil the Vampire Slayer.

THE DEITIES

(BTW, the allusion-illusion of Parr and Innes as
"gods" has kept me laughing for 2 days now!) -- Rynd-Dowd

Dear Phil,

Now, let's see. Rynd-Dowd has/have returned
from his/their medication sessions. He/they laughed
that we might be considered gods. On the other hand,
NMnot Taylor Kingston, the A-rated player who told us
that he was 2300+ ELO, quotes that unimpeachable
source Bernard Levin that whom the mad would destroy,
they first make gods.

Sounds acceptable to me. The ratpackers rightly
think of us as gods, and they would destroy us. Our
job is to zap them further with our bolts of lightning.

Many years back I wrote a book on Viktors "Onkel
Vik" Pupols, a colorful chessmaster from the Pacific
Northwest. Yasser Seirawan wrote an intro noting that
that Vik believed in attacking from move one. One of the
stories involved Vik's rival Jim McCormick who derisively
called him "the Deity" or simply "Deity."

At first Vik took exception to the evident
sarcasm, but a bit later, he decided, "After all,
there are worse things than god that they can call you."

Right, Phil. Rynd-Dowd may not yet accept our
divinity, though I believe we may conclude that NMnot
has been visited sufficiently with the boils to believe in Us.

Now that Rynd-Dowd is/are back in shape, I
expect you to do your Bentley Drummell act. If you
injure him/them as I once did, he/they will forge your
name somewhere else. So hop to it.


Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
jr wrote:

Note to the Innes-bashers and Parr-bashers:
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

Yes, but before the endgame they also placed the middlegame.

(BTW, the allusion-illusion of Parr and Innes as "gods" has kept me
laughing for 2 days now!)

"Whom the mad would destroy, first they make gods." -- Bernard Levin

It would keep me laughing too.


But the nameless dork who can't write his own name since he is paranoid,
plus the dork who can because he is insensible, do not understand that the
reference is to /who/ would be destroyed by such obsessionals.

As a Celt, I am as egalitarian as the broad meadow, and need not think any
man more than a man, but not hold any man less than it either.

This is apparently news to the Carolinas and California, who have not quite
groked the fullness of jr's citation.

It is only amusing to note that those who would comment on the Innes Pledge
cannot, as Sir Lawrence H. Parr points out, actually do as they say. Instead
they stay fixated, negatively, since that is all they got at the moment, to
the Star of their imaginings, and man, do they hate any light at all!@ Even
very ordinary light.

Phil the Vampire Slayer.

Thanks for another laugh Larry. One must say you often underestimate
your opponents, but you never underestimate yourself. Must have been
how you won that big international tournament at Rhein-Main AFB.

wrote in message ups.com...


NMnot Taylor Kingston, the A-rated player who told us
that he was 2300+ ELO, quotes that unimpeachable
source Bernard Levin that whom the mad would destroy,
they first make gods.


While liarry parr continues to mislead us with this false factoid, he
has not said a word on jr's palpable mendacity. No, not one word.
What's that saying ... about seeing the speck in your opponents eyes
while ignoring the log in your allies?


Sounds acceptable to me. The ratpackers rightly
think of us as gods, and they would destroy us. Our
job is to zap them further with our bolts of lightning.


It was jr, one of the Evans ratpackers who brought up the issue
of gods (without even stating that he believes in gods.)

This is where Greg Kennedy should step in with his usual,"Very
good ... you set up a strawman ... then destroyed it."


snipped parr's obsessive statements re Rynd/Dowd.

wrote in message
ups.com...
THE DEITIES

(BTW, the allusion-illusion of Parr and Innes as
"gods" has kept me laughing for 2 days now!) -- Rynd-Dowd

Dear Phil,

Now, let's see. Rynd-Dowd has/have returned
from his/their medication sessions. He/they laughed
that we might be considered gods. On the other hand,
NMnot Taylor Kingston, the A-rated player who told us
that he was 2300+ ELO, quotes that unimpeachable
source Bernard Levin that whom the mad would destroy,
they first make gods.

In short, not-Rynd concurs with notNM on who else says not.

Poor Bernard. He is rather like Kipling's comment on Arthur Conan Doyle when
he visited this town; Kipling rather wondered if he noticed he was here?

Sounds acceptable to me. The ratpackers rightly
think of us as gods, and they would destroy us. Our
job is to zap them further with our bolts of lightning.

I was saving my bolt for use as a shroud. Though you give me an idea for a
t-shirt, frankly Phil as Superhero is laughable since I look unwell in
tights, and I believe those are still /de riguer/.

Many years back I wrote a book on Viktors "Onkel
Vik" Pupols, a colorful chessmaster from the Pacific
Northwest. Yasser Seirawan wrote an intro noting that
that Vik believed in attacking from move one. One of the
stories involved Vik's rival Jim McCormick who derisively
called him "the Deity" or simply "Deity."

At first Vik took exception to the evident
sarcasm, but a bit later, he decided, "After all,
there are worse things than god that they can call you."

Right, Phil. Rynd-Dowd may not yet accept our
divinity, though I believe we may conclude that NMnot
has been visited sufficiently with the boils to believe in Us.

As a yank, becoming divine is all you got, whereas we Brits can use our
titles. They haven't thought of that yet, and I ain't lorded, Lordy-Lordy!
No Sir, no.

Now that Rynd-Dowd is/are back in shape, I
expect you to do your Bentley Drummell act. If you
injure him/them as I once did, he/they will forge your
name somewhere else. So hop to it.

I can't understand if the vehemence masks fragility or issues from such
great density as would be inpenetrable. But overall, I think Rob Mitchell is
right, and we should return to lying about our chess skills rather than each
other, since I admit swatting follies-de-largesse is... well, it is

A large house, and no cheer,
A large park, and no deer,
A large cellar, and no beer!
The Innes Pledgers live in here.

[that's an Elizabethan bit of Graffitum, originally mocking Mr. Christopher
Hawkins - they hung it on the gate of his estate at Trewithen, and he
latterly became a miser, or 'close' as is said in Cornwall. He was ancestor
to the much more liberal Trelawney, of note.]

It is not hardly in the spirit of place, which combines a certain intensity
of feeling with enterprise:-

Deep, deep below the bay, the seweed and the spray,
Embalmed in amber every pirate lies.
/ Vachel Lindsay.

Talking of which, your own name is older than I thought - I mistook it for
very early A. Sax, but it is even earlier than the extant preceeding
language, so not p- or q- celtic, but something far earlier. Spelled Par,
says Mrs Maltwood who dates it 4000 bc?

But I have some research now, on Henry Trevanion, husband of Byron's niece,
Georgiana Leigh, and also to the wench Clare [Byron and Shelley both spelled
it such, though otherwise Claire] Clairmont, who rather struck TreL with her
'brilliant mind, dark, passionate, quick - outwardly reckless but, one
suspects, cold at heart ...' [M. Armstrong] who Mary Shelley could not
dispose of by elopement, but she amused Percy, even though not de trop in
France.

She turned away, but with the autumn weather
Compelled my imagination many days.
/T. S. Elliot.

So as you see, Sir, I am not much minded on men at the moment, though not
quite so fraught as "Englishmen, who are restricted to one wife, cannot be
too careful. //Sir. R. Burton.

--------
At the end Rosetti saw to the funeral, and Swinburne wrote Heart of Hearts,
ending, "Shelley, Trelawney rejoins thee here."

says M. Armstrong in August 1938: Trelawney's cottage is still there in
Sompting. He is still
dimly remembered. This summer once ancient inhabitant said of him, "He
was a funny
old fellow - he used to ring a bell to call the birds"; and another,
still more ancient:
"I believe I almost remember he was buried in Rome."

As an egalitarian Celt he would have eshewed any talk of Gods, though beyond
the power of his pen or arc of sword, what can a man do if so mythologised
as in some way larger than life - or better said, is accused of containing
more of life?

Cordially, Phil

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
jr wrote:

Note to the Innes-bashers and Parr-bashers:
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

Yes, but before the endgame they also placed the middlegame.

(BTW, the allusion-illusion of Parr and Innes as "gods" has kept me
laughing for 2 days now!)

"Whom the mad would destroy, first they make gods." -- Bernard Levin

It would keep me laughing too.


But the nameless dork who can't write his own name since he is paranoid,
plus the dork who can because he is insensible, do not understand that
the
reference is to /who/ would be destroyed by such obsessionals.

As a Celt, I am as egalitarian as the broad meadow, and need not think
any
man more than a man, but not hold any man less than it either.

This is apparently news to the Carolinas and California, who have not
quite
groked the fullness of jr's citation.

It is only amusing to note that those who would comment on the Innes
Pledge
cannot, as Sir Lawrence H. Parr points out, actually do as they say.
Instead
they stay fixated, negatively, since that is all they got at the moment,
to
the Star of their imaginings, and man, do they hate any light at all!@
Even
very ordinary light.

Phil the Vampire Slayer.