wrote:
"Rob" wrote:
What you have posted does not demonstrate that Phil is anti anything.

I lack interest in the 'flame wars' about Phil Innes.
I write this post only to make a few points of fact.

Odd, isn't it, the way this "Rob" only posts when defending Phil Innes?

In fact, Rob Mitchell does *not* 'only post when defending Phil Innes'.
I can recall having some exchanges with Rob Mitchell
when the subject of Phil Innes never was mentioned.

It's almost as if Phil himself got a Google Groups account and
pretends to be "Rob." The "two" of them write with the same style,

No, my impression is that Rob Mitchell lacks
Phil Innes's many 'intellectual' pretensions.

exhibit the same lack of knowledge in the same areas, and
never, ever disagree. None of this is proof, of course, but the
amazing coincidence is certainly suggestive.

Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell often seem to have the same
opinions, but they have not always expressed them in the
same ways.

--Nick

Nick wrote:

I lack interest in the 'flame wars' about Phil Innes.

Perhaps Nick Bourbaki is too "busy" with the flame
wars regarding Sanny and GetClub to participate?

I write this post only to make a few points of fact.

Odd, isn't it, the way this "Rob" only posts when defending Phil Innes?

In fact, Rob Mitchell does *not* 'only post when defending Phil Innes'.
I can recall having some exchanges with Rob Mitchell
when the subject of Phil Innes never was mentioned.

Right. However, "Rob", often as not, appears in any
given thread with the apparent purpose of defending
Phil Innes, while ignoring other, quite similar "crimes"
as those for which he reproaches PI's many critics.
This is normally considered hypocrisy, although I must
say that "Rob's" defense of Phil Innes in no way
*obligates* him to defend everyone, to save the world
from all evil.


It's almost as if Phil himself got a Google Groups account and
pretends to be "Rob." The "two" of them write with the same style,

No, my impression is that Rob Mitchell lacks
Phil Innes's many 'intellectual' pretensions.

Good observation.

exhibit the same lack of knowledge in the same areas, and
never, ever disagree. None of this is proof, of course, but the
amazing coincidence is certainly suggestive.

Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell often seem to have the same
opinions, but they have not always expressed them in the
same ways.

However, once again there are decided tendencies, which
are compatible with any theory -- however unsound -- of these
two being one and the same poster. For example, a poster
who is semi-illiterate will have grave difficulties in posting
under an alias without giving this fact away by making quite
similar mistakes. As we can see with both PI and "Rob", they
both share this little problem -- just as one might expect if
they in fact were a single person with dual identities. Food
for thought.

-- help bot

help bot wrote:

Phil Innes and Rob Mitchell often seem to have the same
opinions, but they have not always expressed them in the
same ways.

However, once again there are decided tendencies, which
are compatible with any theory -- however unsound -- of these
two being one and the same poster. For example, a poster
who is semi-illiterate will have grave difficulties in posting
under an alias without giving this fact away by making quite
similar mistakes. As we can see with both PI and "Rob", they
both share this little problem -- just as one might expect if
they in fact were a single person with dual identities. Food
for thought.


Oh, and I forgot to mention the fact that, when under
pressure, both Phil Innes and "Rob" fall back to the
identical trench, that of attacking their critics by tossing
out phrases like "owning my own words", and accusing
them of being "cowards". IMO, this is a desperate
attempt to *change the subject* to a discussion of
anonymity or whatever, and as such, their near-identical
responses are indicative of an identical emotional
auto-response. Again, this fits perfectly with a theory --
however unsound otherwise -- of one person with dual
identities. All this must be weighed against the
evidence in opposition to this theory. If it turns out
that there is decisive proof that "Rob" is not PI, then
we may draw other conclusions from this strange
similarity of behaviors.

-- help bot

Nick wrote:

wrote:
"Rob" wrote:
What you have posted does not demonstrate that Phil is anti anything.

I lack interest in the 'flame wars' about Phil Innes.
I write this post only to make a few points of fact.


Nick,

You really are a ****ING MORON.

In posting this, you have ENCOURAGED *both* Phil Innes *and* Rob
Mitchell to *increase* their rate of trollposting.

MORON. MORON. MORON.

Dunelm was right.

SHUT THE **** UP AND GO AWAY!

Is that clear enough for you, buddy?

--Mark

Rob Mitchell wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Chess One wrote:

wrote in message
...


"Rob" wrote:

What you have posted does not demonstrate that Phil is anti anything.


Odd, isn't it, the way this "Rob" only posts when defending Phil Innes?

No. I make other posts... Consider this statement LIE#1


Er, you do realise that in writing this, you are replying not to me,
but to "invalid", don't you?

Its not even slightly odd that someone who can't say his name wants to
comment on those who can.

It's almost as if

A little speculation which suggests Rob Mitchell does not exist, a typical,
and in this case literally dehumanising strategm.


"...literally dehumanising...", eh? So "invalid" is *no longer human*,
if literally true. Demonstrate this to be the case, Phil....


Phil himself got a Google Groups account and pretends
to be "Rob." The "two" of them write with the same style, exhibit the
same lack of knowledge in the same areas, and never, ever disagree.

Ho Hum www.mp3.com.au/robmitchell


Again, you do realise that "invalid" wrote the above, don't you?

ROFL! The usual abstract ad hom criticism, mouthed here by another cowardly
soul who can't stand that people should agree to pursue any mentioned chess
program.


I'm no coward, Phil, how about we address the topic which you entreated
me to address? I'll even explain to you what I think Dr. Blair means,
if you wish...

Go on, say yes... refusing would make you look.... well... *cowardly*.

None of this is proof, of course, but the amazing coincidence is certainly
suggestive...

Suggestive! Well, certainly suggestive to other chess-nazis to contribute
further defamatory material of their own, while utterly ignoring the
grossest suggestions of their vile cohorts.



"...vile..." eh? How so? Which cohorts? What have they said or done
which justifies your characterising them as "vile"? Be *specific*.

Why? you don't know them? Or is it kinda like "hearing" an accent? When
you stop noticing the accent you have one yourself?


I probably *do* know them, unlike you I have been contributing to these
groups for some time.. what I asked was, in Phil's estimation, who is
vile? If you can answer this, fine. If not, SHUT THE **** UP, TROLL.

I expect various people will want to contribute further to this material,
and it is pointless to shame them, since the entire effort is intended to
stop people writing anything at all about chess, --see this motive! as
they fail to do themselves.


So calling them "vile" is fine, but shaming them is "pointless"...
Hmmm....

Rob Mitchell is a /decent/ man,

Thank you Phil. As are you.


Phil may, under other circumstances, be decent, but his being mentally
ill obscures any such trait for the time being.


He may be, but, like you, Phil Innes, he makes rash claims and then
backs off.


with his own and independent views on things
which he expresses entirely independently of my own. Our similarity is that
we discuss what aids us and what ails us in furthering chess beyond our own
insistence on our own point of view. To that degree we engage in great
varieties of conversation, and with all sorts of people actually interested
in pursuing chess - though the very motive for doing so will not occur to
those people who are afraid to even write their names.


We discuss the in the Bobby Kennedy method.. I won't quote it hear but
you all know that of which I speak.


Again, you do realise that "invalid" wrote the above...?

I'm not afraid to write my name. I'm not afraid to address the topic.
Name the thread, I'm there, discussing with ya...

As such - this garbage is a form of negative endorsement - otherwise there
would only be such sly and cowardly garbage.


You mean... in the *whole universe*?

Come back from the dark side Mark... Why insert the universe into this?
It didn't do anything to you. lol


Talking to yourself again, troll?

Stop harming Phil.

Mark

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 17, 1:30 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
One quotation marks properly, the other improperly uses apostrophes
around quotations. One puts the period/comma insidethe quote, the
other outside.

Innes is British, so he uses the British style of punctuation.
Examples:

British: 'I'm a bleedin' loony', said Phil. 'Bloody well round the
twist'.

American: "I'm nucking futs," said Phil. "Totally out of my gourd."

In British usage, either single or double quotes are acceptable and
they have exactly the same meaning. I use them consistently in any
one document but am as likely to use singles or doubles each time,
except that if there are a lot of apostrophes floating around, I'll
tend to use doubles to avoid confusion.

Your example of British usage for terminating punctuation for
quotations is wrong. In British usage, the punctuation goes with the
text it belongs to, for want of a better phrase. Thus,

He said, ``Is that you?'' [Sentence is a statement, quote is a
question so the question mark goes inside.]
Did you say, ``It's me''? [Sentence is a question, quote is a
statement so the QM is outside.]

My understanding of American usage is that these examples would be
punctuated,

He said, ``Is that you?''

and

Did you say, ``It's me?''

with the terminating punctuation always inside, even though ``It's
me'' is not a question.

With exclamation marks, British usage allows slightly finer
distinctions to be made:

I said, ``Damn!'' [Matter-of-fact reporting that I exclaimed.]
I said, ``Damn''! [Exclamation that I said something matter-of-
factly.]

That said, I don't recall any occasion on which I've used this in
anger, rather than just as a hypothetical example. I suppose the same
is true for question marks, actually:

Did you say, ``I am Taylor''? [Did you assert that you are Taylor]
Did you say, ``I am Taylor?'' [Did you ask if you were Taylor]

Of course, this only works in writing.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Aquatic Zen Dictator (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ totalitarian leader that puts you in
touch with the universe but it lives
in the sea!

On 18 Dec 2006 13:57:27 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
wrote:


Of course, this only works in writing.

You've obviously never heard the various comedy routines involving
audible punctuation. On the other hand, you haven't missed much.

On Dec 18, 8:57 am, David Richerby
wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 17, 1:30 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
One quotation marks properly, the other improperly uses apostrophes
around quotations. One puts the period/comma insidethe quote, the
other outside.

Innes is British, so he uses the British style of punctuation.
Examples:

British: 'I'm a bleedin' loony', said Phil. 'Bloody well round the
twist'.

American: "I'm nucking futs," said Phil. "Totally out of my gourd."

In British usage, either single or double quotes are acceptable and
they have exactly the same meaning. I use them consistently in any
one document but am as likely to use singles or doubles each time,
except that if there are a lot of apostrophes floating around, I'll
tend to use doubles to avoid confusion.

Your example of British usage for terminating punctuation for
quotations is wrong. In British usage, the punctuation goes with the
text it belongs to, for want of a better phrase.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Checking some British-written text,
I see that you are correct.

Thus,

He said, ``Is that you?'' [Sentence is a statement, quote is a
question so the question mark goes inside.]
Did you say, ``It's me''? [Sentence is a question, quote is a
statement so the QM is outside.]

Thanks for clarifying that distinction.

My understanding of American usage is that these examples would be
punctuated,

He said, ``Is that you?''

and

Did you say, ``It's me?''

with the terminating punctuation always inside, even though ``It's
me'' is not a question.

I'm not sure you're right there, Dave. It looks illogical, but of
course it may still be the rule. I suspect in your second example the ?
would be outside the quotes, like in British usage. Unfortunately I
can't confirm this -- the one style guide I have handy does not deal
with such a situation.

With exclamation marks, British usage allows slightly finer
distinctions to be made:

I said, ``Damn!'' [Matter-of-fact reporting that I exclaimed.]
I said, ``Damn''! [Exclamation that I said something matter-of-
factly.]

That said, I don't recall any occasion on which I've used this in
anger, rather than just as a hypothetical example. I suppose the same
is true for question marks, actually:

Did you say, ``I am Taylor''? [Did you assert that you are Taylor]

Well, I am, but I don't usually go around asserting it.

Did you say, ``I am Taylor?'' [Did you ask if you were Taylor]

No. If I had to ask, I couldn't afford it.

Contrary to Taylor's assertion, you may not be entirely correct....

David Richerby wrote:

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 17, 1:30 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
One quotation marks properly, the other improperly uses apostrophes
around quotations. One puts the period/comma insidethe quote, the
other outside.

Innes is British, so he uses the British style of punctuation.
Examples:

British: 'I'm a bleedin' loony', said Phil. 'Bloody well round the
twist'.

American: "I'm nucking futs," said Phil. "Totally out of my gourd."

In British usage, either single or double quotes are acceptable and
they have exactly the same meaning. I use them consistently in any
one document but am as likely to use singles or doubles each time,
except that if there are

....is... not ...are....

a lot of apostrophes floating around, I'll
tend to use doubles to avoid confusion.

Your example of British usage for terminating punctuation for
quotations is wrong. In British usage, the punctuation goes with the
text it belongs to, for want of a better phrase. Thus,

He said, ``Is that you?'' [Sentence is a statement, quote is a
question so the question mark goes inside.]

Right, but..

1) There should be a *colon* (not a comma) after "He said".
2) You omitted the full stop [period] after the closing quotation
marks, viz.:

He said: "Is that you?".


Did you say, ``It's me''? [Sentence is a question, quote is a
statement so the QM is outside.]

Right, but similar problem, viz.:

Did you say: "It's me."?


My understanding of American usage is that these examples would be
punctuated,

He said, ``Is that you?''

and

Did you say, ``It's me?''

with the terminating punctuation always inside, even though ``It's
me'' is not a question.

With exclamation marks, British usage allows slightly finer
distinctions to be made:

I said, ``Damn!'' [Matter-of-fact reporting that I exclaimed.]

Again, similar mistakes:

I said: "Damn!".

I said, ``Damn''! [Exclamation that I said something matter-of-
factly.]


I said: "Damn [punctuation optional]"!

That said, I don't recall any occasion on which I've used this in
anger, rather than just as a hypothetical example. I suppose the same
is true for question marks, actually:

Did you say, ``I am Taylor''? [Did you assert that you are Taylor]
Did you say, ``I am Taylor?'' [Did you ask if you were Taylor]


Again, colons not commas. Full stop (period) or comma inside the
closing quotation marks in the first of those two examples.
Full stop after the closing quotation marks in the second.

Of course, this only works in writing.


Ahem... this works *only* in writing. Be sure to place the qualifier
correctly.

What you wrote implies: it doesn't cook in writing, it doesn't take the
dog for a walk in writing, it doesn't solve quadratic equations in
writing,...

What I wrote clearly asserts that this applies only to writing.

However, this is untrue, as it turns out, because every time *I speak*,
I am punctuating, mentally.

Overall 3/10

See me after class.

Mark

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Nick wrote:

wrote:
"Rob" wrote:
What you have posted does not demonstrate that Phil is anti anything.

I lack interest in the 'flame wars' about Phil Innes.
I write this post only to make a few points of fact.



Nick,

You really are a ****ING MORON.

In posting this, you have ENCOURAGED *both* Phil Innes *and* Rob
Mitchell to *increase* their rate of trollposting.

MORON. MORON. MORON.

Mark, is this the type of display you would encourage in children
trying to learn to play chess? No wonder there are problems! You
attacked Mr. Bourbaki without cause and it was YOU who attempted to
drag him into these discussions wihout provocation.

Dunelm was right.

SHUT THE **** UP AND GO AWAY!

Please conduct yourself in a more civil manner in the future. These are
open forums.

Is that clear enough for you, buddy?

Perhaps you should follow that advise yourself?
--Mark

Rob