Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
The Historian wrote:snipped... yawn.

Bruceski!

Correct spelling is "brewski". Unless you were imparting a
Polish surname to NB.


You see, Rob, as the impeccable Dr. Blair just pointed out to you, *in
these groups* THE CORRECT SPELLING IS "Bruceski".
Oh, like these groups are the world. ?

You don't know ****.

You are right. I don't know you at all.

Shut the **** up and go away.
Oh? You said a bad word! You lose Markie-Farkie!

Rob

Strange that Neil and I are sitting with Bruceskis... and you have...
er... what do you have, Rob?

Why are you still here?

Mark

Chess One wrote:

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:34:41 GMT):

7 ... What I reported was what members wrote at the USCF
7 forum. ...

_
"... people [in the forum] who plainly resent such
political largesse, without even attempting any
accounting for their actions" - Phil Innes (Sat,
16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT)
_
"... Who, other than Phil Innes, believes that
there is no 'attempting' to 'account' 'for their
actions'? ..." - Louis Blair (17 Dec 2006
01:15:24 -0800)

Who other than Louis Blair, questions it?

I do. HELLO!

After writing that he did not
contest the material, he on the same day contested it, now he asks who ...
etc, and if he doesn't understand what people asked for, ie, some accounting
for the awarded funds.


Phil, you really need to learn to read.

I will also ask Blair to take his stuff out of this thread, since I am
investigatinghere what Houslby thinks sane or even reasonable, since he is
so free to object to supposed abuse, while committing abuses himself - in
short, does he proclaim one thing and do another?


I'm objecting principally to *your behaviour*, which, as always, is
deranged and trolling in character. More than once you have attacked
Dr. Blair groundlessly.

Such behaviour tends to be unwelcome in newsgroups.

MH

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Strange that Neil and I are sitting with Bruceskis... and you have...
er... what do you have, Rob?

Rob has the prestigious and much-coveted "Piqued Parrot Plaque," Mark.
Awarded on 17 October 2006 in the thread "A first in RGCP history." As
Casey Stengel might say, "You could look it up."

Bruceskis are more common on RGCP -- I have one or two to my credit
somewhere along the line, if I'm not mistaken -- but that lessens their
value. You see, Bruceskis can be awarded to anyone by anyone for a
witty retort, snappy comeback, or thoughtful, intelligent post. The
Triple-P has only been awarded once and *can* only be awarded for one
act, and one act alone. And that act has been attempted by numerous
individuals over the years, all of whom have failed miserably (myself
included) because it's extremely hard to do. So, you might say that
while a Bruceski is equivalent to a Good Conduct Medal, the Triple-P is
equivalent to a Purple Heart.

Thus, it seems (to me) that Rob's award trumps yours and Neil's.

Why are you still here?

Mark

Very existential. Why *are* we still here?

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

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

Simple really: you have characterised the apportioning of $10,000 a
scandal. Whether or not you intend it to be, this is a serious
accusation. In time, it may prove that you are justified in employing
the term: "scandal". It may prove that you are not justified.

In time awarding $50,000 with no bids then $10,000 with no bids /may/ be
thought not a scandal?


It may, indeed, if it works out, and most folks are happy with the
deal...
consider it to have been well spent. Indeed, that could be true even of
folks
who *may* consider the amount to have been a little on the high side.

Is it *definitely* a scandal? What *specifically* makes it a scandal
*for
certain*?

--
We seem to have different opinions on what constitutes 'scandal'. I would
say it is a fair assessment of those who wrote at Nolandland to think
these
actions scandalous. I don't know what a scandal would be for you, since
you
have not said.

Yes I have, ****wit. Once again: Profumo. G.W. Bush on the Iraq war.
Union Carbide's treatment of the people of Bhopal, India. Thalidomide.

Stop making yourself out to be more of a ****ing imbecile than you
actually are...

--
I see now how you chose to describe your understanding of scandal, to which
presumably Global Thermonuclear War could be added? That is, if there were
someone left around to report on it. What I do not see is this level of
reporting represented in the dictionary definitions you yourself chose to
offer - and as such your own understanding might be thought ideosyncratic,
if not indeed, to scandalise the very word you address

But since you ask for specifics, the nature of the complaints
is /not/ the amount of money awarded, but its lack of performance
criteria.

Complaint.... ok. Scandal? Hmmm... not certain...

--
I am saying you do not understand enough of the issue to which you complain
to engage in conversation about it.

Since this follows a similar incident involving $50,000 also with no
performance criteria and for no evident $50,000 value, I would not insist
on
the word scandal is a stronger term should be used instead.


I see. And you assert that *your insisting* is enough to make it a
scandal, are you?

This is the point, Phil. You live on Planet Innes. The rest of us live
on Planet Earth.

--
Now your comprehension is revealed, since I say "I would not insist" on the
word scandal... , but you take this to mean I actually insist.

What I reported was what members wrote at the USCF forum. Is that itself
reprehensible?

No, but the manner in which you did it was.

I will not chase these vagueries.


That's a relief.

--
The manner of your own commentary is so obscure as to be unanswerable. I do
not decline to discuss anything, and if I ask you a direct question, and you
duck by making vague references like 'manner', I simply say I do not
understand you. Since you were rather insistent on this issue previously, it
seems as though it now does not matter to any degree, therefore I am puzzled
to understand why you wrote at such high-emotional temperature, whicle not
willing to make yourself clear?

Is there anything odd about it at all?

Yes, one wonders why, as *you* have suggested yourself, it could not
have
*remained confined* to that forum, and resolved here. Certainly, *that*
is odd.

--
I do not understand your statement - you wonder? shrug


I must admit that it contains a typo. I meant: "...resolved there." not
"...resolved here."

--
I do expect the members to try to resolve it there, but chess politics is
the issue /here/, and I commented on its /pattern/ being similar to other
issues at USCF, and which certainly were raised 'here'.


Now, the point is this: what *exactly* did you hope to achieve by
importing the issues to these groups?

--
I already wrote of a need for light and air to relieve political awards -
cited 4 examples of 'awards', all of which deserve examination. You will
also note that in conversations with Randy Bauer, a current board aspirant,
that he is marked for his attitude of asking for perfromance criteria at all
levels of USA. I applaud this initiative, and think it necessary - not least
because people will not pour any money into what is a political sieve. That
is the basis of my interest - what's yours?



The opportunity to shrug?
--
It was your anodyne reply after so much previous heat that occassioned the
shrug. I did not shrug off the issue, but your apparent lack of interest in
it.

Sure it is a serious
accusation by the members, and what Mark Houslby may not in time be 'a
scandal' is hardly justification for calling reporting of members
interests
in terms of insanity.


The insanity, Phil, is manifest in your unusual behaviour. My pointing
out
your being mentally ill has received plaudits *precisely because* other
people
who know you have been *similarly affected* by that behaviour of yours
which,
clearly, is the product of a mental disorder.

For the sake of your own health, you need to see a psychiatrist.

--
It seems to me you have actually offered no model of mental health
yourself,
and when questioned have remarked that 'one wonders' and on 'the manner',
and also included imperatives on how I /should/ behave, while not making
clear why administration of chess money awarded by USCF should not be
reported in a chess.politics thread.


It's actually easier to define in terms of how you should *not* behave.


For example, you should not entreat someone to do something, then
chastise them when they do what you ask.

This is a clear sign of your being mentally unbalanced. The fact that
you do that sort of thing repeatedly is the reason why I receive
plaudits when I entreat you to see a psychiatrist.

--
Perhaps readers here will make their own assessment of who is attempting to
examine any subject, and why, and who of us, for example is doing that, and
indeed, if either of us need a shrink. What we could both discuss with our
respective shrinks, is our basis for awarding money to other people without
any check and blances. I am obviously hung-up about it, so that I feel some
controls are necessary and prudent, as are the members who objected at the
Forum. Whereas I presume you will conduct a different conversation with your
shrink, and say why people should not be obliged to account for awarded
monies - and in fact, why those who do call for these measures are in your
opinion 'insane'.


On such slight foundations as these you invoke a group who have done no
more. I say this is no appeal to reason, and your conclusions are thereby
unreasonable.


Their seeming unreasonable is merely *your opinion*. Quite a range of
people have indicated tacit support for my point-of-view. Some have
expressed explicit support. I have already told you their names, but
I'm willing to do so again if your trolling nature requires it of me...

Besides Rob Mitchell.... who is on your side, Phil?

--
So, if 10 1,000 rated players were to examine a game, and declare no
understanding of it, and those who did understand something of it 'insane'
then you would prefer the 10 x 1,000 players who had no insights, to someone
who achieved an insight? maybe this was even the immortal game? The question
is not of who should object, but of what they object. You appear to have
come late to establishing what the issue is, having written several times of
the amount of money, rather than accounting for the money. Would 10 people
who also missaprehended the issue at the forum be 'more right' by virtue of
their numbers?

What side am I on? And what side of what? Is the fact of reporting these
member concerns and recommendations to account for awarded funds to be on
someone's side? I admit that I think it is a prudent measure, and personally
would require some amount of accodunting if the money were my own. I further
think this is not usual, and you would be Nutz@ not to do so.

Is this the issue to which you cite support for your point of view? You
would award money and not ask for any measure of control at all? By all
means be as specific yourelf as you recommend of others.


In making such a statement, however, you place certain obligations
upon
yourself, one of which is to identify clearly what your sources are.

You are fond of command - eh? If awarding money with no performance
criteria
is not a scandal for you, what do you think a 'scandal' is?


If you want a *definition* of scandal, I'll go with the dictionary, I
think:

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
scan·dal /'skændl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[skan-dl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun,
verb, -daled, -dal·ing or (especially British) -dalled, -dal·ling.
-noun 1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.
3. damage to reputation; public disgrace.
4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip.
5. a person whose conduct brings disgrace or offense.
-verb (used with object) 6. British Dialect. to defame (someone) by
spreading scandal.
7. Obsolete. to disgrace."

If you want examples:

Profumo

President G. W. Bush's having declared the war in Iraq to be over, when
*still* there are people being killed there.

Union Carbide's mistreatment of the people of Bhopal, India *after* the
disaster which wrecked its plant.

Thalidomide.

Those are scandals.

--
Your opinion seems to be that the serial awarding of other people's money
without open canvassing of candidates, and without performance criteria,
is
not a scandal. Okay. I understand you do not like the word scandal, but
this
objection to the term that describes the behavior is not in itself to
dismiss what is described. How should the people who objected to the
matter
be characterised?


Need they be characterised at all? If so, why?

--
You duck the issue again. Let me remove the 'seems' from my paragraph above,
in that case. You also dislike the word scandal so much, but can't replace
it with a synonym, or word of other value, even though there is nothing in
the dictionary which *insists* as you do, on your definition of the word. In
fact that is your own insistance, no? And it is not substantiated as normal
use.


Because you, Mark Houslby, have not done so, but think fit to disagree
over
a single descriptive word, does not make others insane!


No, indeed. The insanity is manifest in the behaviour, of which there
is a plethora of examples. Should I cite some, again, deranged troll?

--
Fear not! What is being exampled in these messages is the degree of our
ability to attend to a subject, and other people, I find, make up their own
minds on who is being attempting to be clear about a chess issue, and who is
writing trollery in newsgroups, with all its lovely side-effects.

I don't mind if you disagree with me that the first two dictionary
definitions you offer are not appropriate:
1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.

But then the issue remains of the basis of your own term to describe these
actions - a term which is current missing - and again, to call people
insane
about the use of a single word [since you want specificity] is itself not
very bright, no?

Indeed, that would *not* be very bright, but that is *not* the reason
for my describing you as deranged.

DUH!

--
Your DUH! I am afraid, since I am merely answering you in your own terms.
You duck issues when put to you, or are unable to produce them when
questioned to YOUR meaning. I hope you notice that your own supplied
dictionary definitions do not bear out your representation of them. And
sionce these are the first two in the dictionary, then perhaps you will
reconsider what you object to? Of course, you will not like to do this, but
since you made such a fuss about it, in front of the people, how will you
seem in the future if you seem to have slight understanding of even your own
definitions?


Since it is my opinion that the readers at Nolandland did
indeed take offense at a fault and a misdeed, and they did think it was a
discreditable action. To disagree with reporting those people here, for no
evident reason you can state over all these posts, while calling others
insane, does not follow.

No, indeed, what marks the insanity here is your sweeping gestures,
your avoiding the posting of even the most basic background
information, your taking offence at the completely inoffensive, your...

--
mark Houlsby offers us new definitions of 'completely inoffensive', which
continuing to insist on the insanity of others, and the f-word as main
adjective. this of course does not make what he says untrue, but does define
the level of conversation where he is, as normal

It follows no rational sequence of understanding,
and is an abnormal use of words.


Under the circumstances, it is completely apposite, and that is why I
receive plaudits for it.

--
I see! You think stating your resentment, but not stating why chess politics
should not be reported in a newsgroup thread about chess politics, is
'apposite'. Okay, I suppose this qualifies such support as you have gained.


In your case, without your revealing your source,

I DID reveal the source - in fact YOU asked me to post all 75 messages
here.

Well, if that's what it takes for the subject to be properly understood
in this forum, then, since you introduced it here, that may well be
what you have, in fact, to do.

You do not need to understand it in this forum if you can go to the forum
where it is written. What you cannot say is that you cannot do that. It is
your need to have things here, rather than mine. But you are unable to
explain that in simple English.

--
I asked YOU why YOU wanted me to post items here. But YOU dissapear
yourself, and do not say why you can't go and look yourself!


It took Dr. Blair to tell me where to look. Now that I know where to
look, I have joined the USCF, simply in order to be able to read the
fora. I shall not be able to read the fora until I receive an issue of
CL and get to read my PIN. When that happens, I shall read the fora,
and try to get to the bottom of whatever-the-****-it-is that has got
you worked up this time.

--
Who has been ****ing and blinding about this issue? Seems to me you are the
one who is worked up. Who do you think you are kidding Houslby?


YOU also do not ask those who can and have looked if whatever YOU want to
verify or contest is true. Again you offer no credible reason for your
demands, nor for your conclusions.


Other people evidently disagree with that assessment.

--
Are you saying that other people agree that you do not need to offer
credible reasons for what you demand of others. They can't be agreeing with
your conclusions, since there is nothing you can conclude, since you haven't
even looked at the material, and keep getting it wrong.


The point is that *in importing the topic here* you placed *yourself*
under an obligation which you have singularly failed to fulfil.

--
As you can see, I do not agree. You are unable to state why YOU want it
here!

Erm.... you already brought it here, ****wit.

--
Is this how you talk where you are. Hey- ****WIT - do this now - no reasons
are necessary - OBEY ME AT ONCE! You are like a characature of the Red
Queen! How imperious of you to command us to your will, encouraged only by
abuse.

I don't think its necessary simply because somebody demands it - why
not do as I wrote in the previous paragraph, and say why you can't read
the
material where it is currently posted?

The reasons why I couldn't read the material where it is already posted
a

1) Until Dr. Blair did your legwork for you, and told me where to look,
I had no clue where to look (you had provided none, despite repeated
entreaties...another manifestation of your derangement).

2) I don't yet have a PIN. I do have my very own USCF Membership Card
(which I just printed) but no PIN, yet.

As soon as my first issue of CL arrives, I'm there, foraging in the
fora...

--
You did not say you could not access the material. And it was the Good Dr.
Balir who cut my first reference to the material. Since you take Rob
Mitchell to task for his innocence of the word Bruceski, then I can
understand your own innocence about Nolandland. Though, I am sure I
mentioned the USCF forum at least a dozen times so far.

Writers in newsgroups refer to URL's
all the time, since the material may be lengthy, copyrighted, or serial.
If
you are unable to read material elsewhere, then that at least explain your
request. But for some unspoken reason you have not explained YOUR need,
not
mine.

Why should it be spoken? This is Usenet! You have imported the issue
here! If you didn't expect something like this... why did you not? Why
DID you import the issue here, Phil?

--
Well why not? This is a chess politcs newsgroup. What other reason is
necessary? You objection is OBSCURE Houslby. YOUR objection is obscure - get
it? Your objection to referencing the material is unusual. You offer no
reasons why it should not be referenced - you simply repeat a question about
why chess politics should be discussed in a chess politics newsgroup.

Take a look at your own attitude, since I am making sure everyone else does!
It is not only okay to talk chess politics in a chess politics newsgroup -
it is actually preferred!


No other writer contests that the material exists,

Newsflash: I don't contest that it exists. All this time I was asking
you where it was, is all. You didn't answer. Dr. Blair did.

nor that the
extracts of comments I made are not true.

What I have been saying is that from what *you* have written here it is
impossible to tell.

--
ROFL - listen- NO ONE contests that it does not exist - but you.

It is NOT 'impossible to tell' you say, but you do not allow it to be
possible, because you are an arrogant abuse lout who wont ask anyone else if
its true - preferring to utter defamatory comments without while admitting
you know nothing.


Dr. Blair has been trying to understand what you
mean. Evidently, he cannot. I have been trying to understand what you
mean, and cannot. This is because *as always* there is a problem
*caused* by *your writing*.

Are you being so very rational
here?

Yes. Are you?

It seems as though you demand things of me without also providing me
any reason to perform them.


The reason has been provided several times, you disingenuous ****.
Taylor has explained it. I have explained it. If you're so dimwitted
that still don't get it, then you should just shut the **** up about
it.


--
In all the above you AVOID offering any reason - instead think people owe
you something - because you call them a disingeneous ****.Get someone to
agree with you that this is decent expression - I mean decent enough to
actually find something out.


Now you know the source, which remains uncontested, what does it mean to
you
to now understand that this is from USCF members?

It means exactly what I have just said. Ok, it's from USCF members...
but *where's the beef, Phil*? Why is it a scandal? Is it a scandal
because you would have spent the money differently?

I asked you why you write - and you do not answer. You do not know the beef
since you haven't even read the thread - neither have you noticed the
content of the thread - except to say that you yourself can't understand why
$50,000 then $10,000 more in unbid awarded contracts without performance
criteria should cause even a raised eyebrow!

R
O

F


L

!

!



--
What do the members think it is? I do not quite think you have grasped the
issue, although you conclude on it with rhetorical questions. But perhaps
things are different where you are, and like USCF you or your organisation
have made two recent awards of money without bidding totalling $60,000,
but
without describing any bench-marks or other criteria for performance? This
seems to be the member's beef.

Which member? You?

--
The members I reported. But you duck the main issue again. let me take it
that you either do not understand why any performance is ncecessary in a
contract, or that you disagree that there should be any. And, permit me to
say these are not normal attitudes, and to so significantly duck
'understanding' all these SPECIFICS, does not recommend your intelligence.


....

--
Well, Mark, since I have offered this reference a dozen times already to
both Kingston and Blair, and since you call me a 'dimwit' above, then I
must
say to you that by your answers you do not understand what the members
complain about, have not said why in your opinion we should not hear about
it here, and since I also suggested to you to ask someone else if you
can't
reference the material, it seems to me that you yourself are not being
particularly active bright or attentive or clear, and it is your own wits
which are dimmed - and I really don't think this is my fault at all!


Look, dimwit.... It has taken the efforts of *somebody else* simply to
provide the *most basic information* required to *justify* the issues'
being discussed here *at all*. You act, but don't take responsibility
for your actions. You ask people to provide evidence that you are
wrong. People provide evidence that you are wrong. You insult them. And
on, and on....

--
How general vague and abstract we both are! But I think that by this post
the reader can assess who is kinda vague, and who ain't. Who joined the
vague-abuser club, and who doesn't need to justify writing chess politics in
a chess politics newsgroup.

We also end on 'evidence' I am wrong about something, whatever that
somethingh is. If Houslby has something to say about the issues the members
raised at the USCF forum he could reply. That is the issue. If he does not
understand the issue, or requires another 6 credit course in expressing
himself, and the good Dr. Blair will oblige him, then I presume we will hear
more when Houslby will attempt the topic, as such.

Phil Innes



Mark Houlsby

Rob wrote:
The Historian wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
Bruceski!
Thank you.

Correct spelling is "brewski". UNless of course you were inplying a
Polish surname to NB.


Damned newbies!

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Matt Nemmers wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Strange that Neil and I are sitting with Bruceskis... and you have...
er... what do you have, Rob?

Rob has the prestigious and much-coveted "Piqued Parrot Plaque," Mark.
Awarded on 17 October 2006 in the thread "A first in RGCP history." As
Casey Stengel might say, "You could look it up."

Bruceskis are more common on RGCP -- I have one or two to my credit
somewhere along the line, if I'm not mistaken -- but that lessens their
value. You see, Bruceskis can be awarded to anyone by anyone for a
witty retort, snappy comeback, or thoughtful, intelligent post. The
Triple-P has only been awarded once and *can* only be awarded for one
act, and one act alone. And that act has been attempted by numerous
individuals over the years, all of whom have failed miserably (myself
included) because it's extremely hard to do. So, you might say that
while a Bruceski is equivalent to a Good Conduct Medal, the Triple-P is
equivalent to a Purple Heart.

Thus, it seems (to me) that Rob's award trumps yours and Neil's.

Why are you still here?

Mark

Very existential. Why *are* we still here?

LOL!

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the heads up! How the heck are you doing? How's life in Iowa?

Chess One wrote:

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

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

Simple really: you have characterised the apportioning of $10,000 a
scandal. Whether or not you intend it to be, this is a serious
accusation. In time, it may prove that you are justified in employing
the term: "scandal". It may prove that you are not justified.

In time awarding $50,000 with no bids then $10,000 with no bids /may/ be
thought not a scandal?


It may, indeed, if it works out, and most folks are happy with the
deal...
consider it to have been well spent. Indeed, that could be true even of
folks
who *may* consider the amount to have been a little on the high side.

Is it *definitely* a scandal? What *specifically* makes it a scandal
*for
certain*?

--
We seem to have different opinions on what constitutes 'scandal'. I would
say it is a fair assessment of those who wrote at Nolandland to think
these
actions scandalous. I don't know what a scandal would be for you, since
you
have not said.

Yes I have, ****wit. Once again: Profumo. G.W. Bush on the Iraq war.
Union Carbide's treatment of the people of Bhopal, India. Thalidomide.

Stop making yourself out to be more of a ****ing imbecile than you
actually are...

--
I see now how you chose to describe your understanding of scandal, to which
presumably Global Thermonuclear War could be added? That is, if there were
someone left around to report on it. What I do not see is this level of
reporting represented in the dictionary definitions you yourself chose to
offer - and as such your own understanding might be thought ideosyncratic,
if not indeed, to scandalise the very word you address

But since you ask for specifics, the nature of the complaints
is /not/ the amount of money awarded, but its lack of performance
criteria.

Complaint.... ok. Scandal? Hmmm... not certain...

--
I am saying you do not understand enough of the issue to which you complain
to engage in conversation about it.


I agree. The onus is *upon you* to alleviate this deficiency, as has
been explained to you upon numerous occasions. My guess is that *you*
do not understand enough about the issue either--not enough to enable
you *legitimately* to state baldly: "...which is this week's scandal."
which itself, incidentally, implies not only that this is a scandal,
but that there was a scandal the week before this one, and the week
before that, and the week before that,... and also that there was a
scandal the week after this one,...

This is *why* I have been saying to you: if you were to swear in a
court of law that this is, indeed, a scandal, then are you *certain*
that you would not be convicted of perjury? What makes you certain that
you would not?

Dr. Blair has evidently been searching diligently, and his researches
seem to indicate that that'd be your fate--conviction for perjury. Add
to that the groundless, unprovoked and unrepentant attacks upon Dr.
Blair's impeccable character, and...you're really not doing very well,
Phil.

Since this follows a similar incident involving $50,000 also with no
performance criteria and for no evident $50,000 value, I would not insist
on
the word scandal is a stronger term should be used instead.


I see. And you assert that *your insisting* is enough to make it a
scandal, are you?

This is the point, Phil. You live on Planet Innes. The rest of us live
on Planet Earth.

--
Now your comprehension is revealed, since I say "I would not insist" on the
word scandal... , but you take this to mean I actually insist.


That's progress then. So you are admitting that your having written, at
the top of your first post: "...which is this week's scandal..." was as
rash as it was stupid?

Good. That means that I win the argument. That means that Dr. Blair's
position is vindicated, and that you owe him *at least* two apologies.

Set to it....

snip

Mark Houlsby

Mark Houlsby wrote:
I'm objecting principally to *your behaviour*, which, as always, is
deranged and trolling in character. More than once you have attacked
Dr. Blair groundlessly.

Such behaviour tends to be unwelcome in newsgroups.

I'm not taking sides here, but how about the attacks on Phil, have you
been reading those?

Trolling in the internet is the norm and you should know that by now.

LS

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

I am saying you do not understand enough of the issue to which you
complain
to engage in conversation about it.


I agree. The onus is *upon you* to alleviate this deficiency, as has
been explained to you upon numerous occasions.

There is a direct relationship in you between your apprehension of things
and your written abuse.

Let us end this here, your highness, since you not explained anything of
your own interest, but demanded of me instead, and which obliges me to do
nothing whatever.

My guess is that *you*

STOP guessing. Do some work yourself, and if you have anything to say,
/after/ informing yourself, then do so.

You seem to have the crazy!@ opinion that you can both accuse people of
being insane and still require them to give you a free education. All this
mixed up with the crudest level of abuse.

You cannot even stick to your own definitions, and declare yourself a cheat
by your own words - not being able to understand a 'scandal' even by your
own definitions, and making an exceptional use of the word not indicated in
your own dictionary. This argument is not an external one between you and
me, and all takes place in yourself.

You don't understand that since it is inconvenient to you to associate your
intense '****' writing with what you want to understand, the sense of what
you want does not survive your emotional expression.

You can continue to apply to whoever you wish, and ignore the evidence of
your own actions, as I reflected them to you, and which you cannot claim to
be unaware of, since you snipped them

The only reason I wrote the long post to you was so that you could observe
why you rant, and if really, this is not a massively self-indulgent and out
of proportion response to your address to all the issues you have raised.

Phil Innes

LiamToo wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
I'm objecting principally to *your behaviour*, which, as always, is
deranged and trolling in character. More than once you have attacked
Dr. Blair groundlessly.

Such behaviour tends to be unwelcome in newsgroups.

I'm not taking sides here, but how about the attacks on Phil, have you
been reading those?

Trolling in the internet is the norm and you should know that by now.

LS

Not the norm by any means, Lance. You have now placed an obligation
upon yourself to demonstrate that a *significant proportion* of the
posts in *every thread* are trollposts.

Concerning Innes' being trolled: post links.

If you can't do both of those things, you shall have clearly
demonstrated that you are *still*
nothing more, and nothing less, than an idiotic, illiterate troll who
calls himself an ace researcher, yet can't even use a simple tool like
Google. (Nick Bourbaki lives miles away from the place to which your
researches led you...ask Greg Kennedy).

Off you go...

MH