Phil Innes has, for many years, exerted an exasperating influence upon
a great many of us. Now, he has a sidekick, the slightly more literate
but equally evasive Rob Mitchell.

It appears to be impossible to get to the bottom of Phil-ology, not
least because of his sidekick's habit of attempting diversionary
tactics right and left.

So, if you've an opinion on the subject heading, please answer:

a) yes, we should ignore Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell

b) no, it's worth expending the time and effort upon engaging with
them, STFU Houlsby

c) who the heck are Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell anyways

d) this poll is a bad idea.

Naturally, messrs. Innes and Mitchell are ineligible to vote, it is to
be expected that they would support each other/themselves.

I'm just curious.

Mark

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Phil Innes has, for many years, exerted an exasperating influence upon
a great many of us. Now, he has a sidekick, the slightly more literate
but equally evasive Rob Mitchell.

It appears to be impossible to get to the bottom of Phil-ology, not
least because of his sidekick's habit of attempting diversionary
tactics right and left.

So, if you've an opinion on the subject heading, please answer:

a) yes, we should ignore Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell

b) no, it's worth expending the time and effort upon engaging with
them, STFU Houlsby

c) who the heck are Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell anyways

d) this poll is a bad idea.

Naturally, messrs. Innes and Mitchell are ineligible to vote, it is to
be expected that they would support each other/themselves.

I'm just curious.

Mark

Mark, I took this pledge in August:

"I pledge not to respond to the newsgroup postings and email of Philip
Keith Innes or Rob Mitchell, even if they are addressed to me, or I
am the subject of them."

I think I've been pretty good about keeping it. And I know it drives
Innes and Mitchell to distraction.

The Historian wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
Phil Innes has, for many years, exerted an exasperating influence upon
a great many of us. Now, he has a sidekick, the slightly more literate
but equally evasive Rob Mitchell.

It appears to be impossible to get to the bottom of Phil-ology, not
least because of his sidekick's habit of attempting diversionary
tactics right and left.

So, if you've an opinion on the subject heading, please answer:

a) yes, we should ignore Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell

b) no, it's worth expending the time and effort upon engaging with
them, STFU Houlsby

c) who the heck are Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell anyways

d) this poll is a bad idea.

Naturally, messrs. Innes and Mitchell are ineligible to vote, it is to
be expected that they would support each other/themselves.

I'm just curious.

Mark

Mark, I took this pledge in August:

"I pledge not to respond to the newsgroup postings and email of Philip
Keith Innes or Rob Mitchell, even if they are addressed to me, or I
am the subject of them."

I think I've been pretty good about keeping it. And I know it drives
Innes and Mitchell to distraction.

Which is why he has replied in posts about other topics and in so by
addressing indirectly has in effect broken his own pledge. It's like a
child saying to his friend" you tell him that I has he is a ninny-
moggin" even as the person he is addressing is standing next to him. I
is simply one of many childish acts by those whose emotional skin is as
thick as the skin on churned butter.
Rob

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Phil Innes has, for many years, exerted an exasperating influence upon
a great many of us. Now, he has a sidekick, the slightly more literate
but equally evasive Rob Mitchell.

It appears to be impossible to get to the bottom of Phil-ology, not
least because of his sidekick's habit of attempting diversionary
tactics right and left.

So, if you've an opinion on the subject heading, please answer:

a) yes, we should ignore Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell

b) no, it's worth expending the time and effort upon engaging with
them, STFU Houlsby

c) who the heck are Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell anyways

d) this poll is a bad idea.

Naturally, messrs. Innes and Mitchell are ineligible to vote, it is to
be expected that they would support each other/themselves.

I don't think it is fair to exclude these two (one?) from
voicing their (his?) opinion(s?), especially regarding c),
who are PI and RM, since of all the posters here, they/he
are quite possibly the one(s) who know them/him best.

-------------

Now, let me cast my votes:

Regarding a), I say "no" on account of, for instance, PI
being the *only* person here who knows about such
obscure -- yet important -- technical matters as the
Andean language, as it relates to the development of
chess and its little-known influence upon ancient chess
openings theory.

As to b), "no", it certainly is not worth the time and
effort. Nobody has *that much* spare time and energy
to converse with alien intelligences in their foreign
tongue, with its quite unique version of rationality.

To c), my answer is: who cares?

And d), yes, this poll is a bad idea, because it is
quite obviously just a ploy to attack and ridicule those
posters disliked by Mr. Houlsby. I don't believe in such
cheap tactics. I think Mr. Houlsby ought to consider
the straightforward approach of simply kidnapping them
and then applying tar and feathers on their flesh. (Of
course, this is against the law, and as such I disavow
any knowledge of MH and his IM-4 team, as does the
Secretary).

-----------

On a separate matter, I was amazed to discover the
fact that someone actually bothered to do a real study
on Rob Mitchell, instead of, for instance, just taking
the word of some idiotic Evans ratpacker as to his
"true identity"/ The herd mentality which has prevailed
up 'till now, has finally found a singular exception in
whoever undertook this work! Kudos.

-- help bot

help bot wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:



-----------

On a separate matter, I was amazed to discover the
fact that someone actually bothered to do a real study
on Rob Mitchell, instead of, for instance, just taking
the word of some idiotic Evans ratpacker as to his
"true identity"/ The herd mentality which has prevailed
up 'till now, has finally found a singular exception in
whoever undertook this work! Kudos.

-- help bot

Really? You saw the newspaper article about me in the Bluefield, West
irgina newspaper? Or did you see the one about me in the Murfreesboro,
TN newspaper? Or was it one of the several television news stories on
Nashville, TN television where I was the expert used to verify a
position? Was it in the Australian music boards for my songwriting? Was
it in any number of chess circles where I have been working on a
unified curriculum for math and chess ? Was it in a sailing newsgroup
where I wrote about learning to sail my sailboat, "Prozac"?

If you google me, I am everywhere. I don't hide and I am very honest in
my opinions. I dislike those to gang up on others and I root for the
underdog.

Rob

Rob wrote:

On a separate matter, I was amazed to discover the
fact that someone actually bothered to do a real study
on Rob Mitchell, instead of, for instance, just taking
the word of some idiotic Evans ratpacker as to his
"true identity"/ The herd mentality which has prevailed
up 'till now, has finally found a singular exception in
whoever undertook this work! Kudos.

-- help bot

Really? You saw the newspaper article about me in the Bluefield, West
irgina newspaper? Or did you see the one about me in the Murfreesboro,
TN newspaper? Or was it one of the several television news stories on
Nashville, TN television where I was the expert used to verify a
position? Was it in the Australian music boards for my songwriting? Was
it in any number of chess circles where I have been working on a
unified curriculum for math and chess ? Was it in a sailing newsgroup
where I wrote about learning to sail my sailboat, "Prozac"?

If you google me, I am everywhere. I don't hide and I am very honest in
my opinions. I dislike those to gang up on others and I root for the
underdog.

Of course, it was obvious that I was referring to the
research some poster had *just mentioned* in this thread,
not to any newspaper articles or other great achievements
of [either of] the two (one?) individual(s).

Somebody (whose identity can be looked up) wrote
that he had done a "study" of sorts on the -- how did
Mr. Parr put it -- on the syntax of these/this poster(s),
finding decided differences between them. One item
which was pointed out was the quite different handling
of quotation marks, for instance. I found this -- no
matter how limited in scope -- research to be a vast
improvement on the technique employed heretofore, of
blindly following a random Evans ratpacker's baseless
opinion. Of course, it probably required some work,
and engagement of the gray matter, and that is most
likely the explanation as to the unpopularity of the
research method.

-- help bot

help bot wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Phil Innes has, for many years, exerted an exasperating influence upon
a great many of us. Now, he has a sidekick, the slightly more literate
but equally evasive Rob Mitchell.

It appears to be impossible to get to the bottom of Phil-ology, not
least because of his sidekick's habit of attempting diversionary
tactics right and left.

So, if you've an opinion on the subject heading, please answer:

a) yes, we should ignore Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell

b) no, it's worth expending the time and effort upon engaging with
them, STFU Houlsby

c) who the heck are Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell anyways

d) this poll is a bad idea.

Naturally, messrs. Innes and Mitchell are ineligible to vote, it is to
be expected that they would support each other/themselves.

I don't think it is fair to exclude these two (one?) from
voicing their (his?) opinion(s?), especially regarding c),
who are PI and RM, since of all the posters here, they/he
are quite possibly the one(s) who know them/him best.

-------------

Now, let me cast my votes:

Regarding a), I say "no" on account of, for instance, PI
being the *only* person here who knows about such
obscure -- yet important -- technical matters as the
Andean language, as it relates to the development of
chess and its little-known influence upon ancient chess
openings theory.

As to b), "no", it certainly is not worth the time and
effort. Nobody has *that much* spare time and energy
to converse with alien intelligences in their foreign
tongue, with its quite unique version of rationality.

To c), my answer is: who cares?

And d), yes, this poll is a bad idea, because it is
quite obviously just a ploy to attack and ridicule those
posters disliked by Mr. Houlsby. I don't believe in such
cheap tactics. I think Mr. Houlsby ought to consider
the straightforward approach of simply kidnapping them
and then applying tar and feathers on their flesh. (Of
course, this is against the law, and as such I disavow
any knowledge of MH and his IM-4 team, as does the
Secretary).

-----------

On a separate matter, I was amazed to discover the
fact that someone actually bothered to do a real study
on Rob Mitchell, instead of, for instance, just taking
the word of some idiotic Evans ratpacker as to his
"true identity"/ The herd mentality which has prevailed
up 'till now, has finally found a singular exception in
whoever undertook this work! Kudos.

-- help bot

Ummm...Greg...you were supposed to post EITHER a), b), c) or d). I
wasn't asking for a critique of what I wrote. My having written
"....STFU Houlsby..." should have been a clue to my having been fully
aware of the level of conceit to which I had risen...

So, please pick ONE... a), b), c) or d)... otherwise your chad will be
considered to be hanging, which may cause the girls to laugh...

Thanks ever so much.

--Mark

help bot wrote:

Rob wrote:

On a separate matter, I was amazed to discover the
fact that someone actually bothered to do a real study
on Rob Mitchell, instead of, for instance, just taking
the word of some idiotic Evans ratpacker as to his
"true identity"/ The herd mentality which has prevailed
up 'till now, has finally found a singular exception in
whoever undertook this work! Kudos.

-- help bot

Really? You saw the newspaper article about me in the Bluefield, West
irgina newspaper? Or did you see the one about me in the Murfreesboro,
TN newspaper? Or was it one of the several television news stories on
Nashville, TN television where I was the expert used to verify a
position? Was it in the Australian music boards for my songwriting? Was
it in any number of chess circles where I have been working on a
unified curriculum for math and chess ? Was it in a sailing newsgroup
where I wrote about learning to sail my sailboat, "Prozac"?

If you google me, I am everywhere. I don't hide and I am very honest in
my opinions. I dislike those to gang up on others and I root for the
underdog.

Of course, it was obvious that I was referring to the
research some poster had *just mentioned* in this thread,
not to any newspaper articles or other great achievements
of [either of] the two (one?) individual(s).

Somebody (whose identity can be looked up) wrote
that he had done a "study" of sorts on the -- how did
Mr. Parr put it -- on the syntax of these/this poster(s),
finding decided differences between them. One item
which was pointed out was the quite different handling
of quotation marks, for instance. I found this -- no
matter how limited in scope -- research to be a vast
improvement on the technique employed heretofore, of
blindly following a random Evans ratpacker's baseless
opinion. Of course, it probably required some work,
and engagement of the gray matter, and that is most
likely the explanation as to the unpopularity of the
research method.

-- help bot

Someone also started a thread with a certain deranged troll's name in
it.

Funny how often trolls get their own thread...

Mark

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Someone also started a thread with a certain deranged troll's name in
it.

Funny how often trolls get their own thread...


How long have you been having these "visions" of,
um, trolls? And were they a problem before you
stopped playing chess? I see. Perhaps it would
be best if we put you back on the chess therapy,
despite all the wasted time and frustration when
you lose to Nick Bourbaki in his pet opening lines.

After all, with the therapy you may be considered a
bit obsessive about a mere game, but without it you
could be considered by some to be completely
irrational, a raving lunatic not unlike "IM" Innes.

[Really. I mean, being jealous of an imaginary
being like a troll, getting his own thread? I thought
I'd seen everything, but no.]

-- shrink bot

Guy Macon wrote:


Not only is the usage of " and ' different, but Rob uses
them correctly, which speaks against the possibility of
him being a sock-puppet with intentionlly introduced
errors deigned to increase obfusation. My conclusion;
not the same person.

Clearly not the same person. It seems to me that this is a matter
neither of speculation nor of opinion.