Mark Houlsby wrote:
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?


Yes I do.

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?


Again, again.. Yes I do Mark.

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.

Great. We both know of whom Phil refers so there is no need for me to
assume that I can read his mind. Or are you a mind reader? Now, If you
can't type without dropping profanity as readily as a cow drops dung,
take your own advise about silence and stop projecting, please.

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.


Mark, again.. I think you are projecting your own illness.
Right?


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...?


Yes I do. Thanks.... Mark.

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?

LOL. No.I am not you even though your delusional projections might make
you believe that were the case. LOL

Stop harming Phil.

White a tripe taster you appear to be with this goofy barrage of silly
faux concern. Tisk-Tisk

Rob
Mark

Now that Mark Houlsby has a thread (title) of his very
own, I just wanted to say this:

A little while back, there were two posters who so
closely resembled each other in Web photos that I
wonder if even they could tell *themselves* apart.
When this resemblance was pointed out, one of
them immediately insisted he had both shaved off his
beard, and lost over a hundred pounds! Of course, no
"after" photo was provided, just his claim.

Now we have this fellow, "Rob", who is constantly
defending Phil Innes from a hoard of critics, and who
claims he is unrelated, that it's all circumstantial.
Fine. But it is funny how both IM Innes and "Rob"
cannot spell worth a hoot. In one post, I recall
"Rob" telling Mark Houlsby he was a "retard", and
in the same sentence, misspelling so many words
I nearly fell out of my chair! From reading here in
rgc, I have become accustomed to pretentious,
arrogant nincompoops who of course dole out such
insults with near-perfect spelling and grammar. But
"Rob" doesn't seem to care. He's almost child-like
in this respect.

It would not surprise me much if somebody eventually
were to dredge up photos of PI and "Rob", and both
were to be short, pudgy redheads with thick glasses
and a multitude of freckles. No, that would be not
surprise at all.

-- help bot

help bot wrote:
I recall
"Rob" telling Mark Houlsby he was a "retard",


Wrong. I didn't call him that.

Rob

help bot wrote:
Now that Mark Houlsby has a thread (title) of his very
own, I just wanted to say this:

A little while back, there were two posters who so
closely resembled each other in Web photos that I
wonder if even they could tell *themselves* apart.
When this resemblance was pointed out, one of
them immediately insisted he had both shaved off his
beard, and lost over a hundred pounds! Of course, no
"after" photo was provided, just his claim.

Part of recovering from obesity is losing the mental baggage associated
with it. One piece of that baggage is the compulsion to answer trolls.
Or to feed them personal information, for that matter.

The Historian wrote:
help bot wrote:
Now that Mark Houlsby has a thread (title) of his very
own, I just wanted to say this:

A little while back, there were two posters who so
closely resembled each other in Web photos that I
wonder if even they could tell *themselves* apart.
When this resemblance was pointed out, one of
them immediately insisted he had both shaved off his
beard, and lost over a hundred pounds! Of course, no
"after" photo was provided, just his claim.

Part of recovering from obesity is losing the mental baggage associated
with it. One piece of that baggage is the compulsion to answer trolls.
Or to feed them personal information, for that matter.

This post is unnecessary, but I would add that Neil has posted them and
looks like he feels much better. Good Work!
Rob

get your own life Kennedy - stop whining with watery metaphors that other
people ain't good enough for you, and see what you can do yourself )

though its hard to think quite how you will do this, since even kasparov and
fischer were not good enough chess players in your opinion, and lesser
mortals like evans are so much dirt, disposable in a few whisks and phrases

come on! be a man and stand on your own feet, not other peoples
being a man doesn;t mean you aren;t wrong - it means you are wrong a lot,
since you are still trying to do something and exploring. if fishwifes
criticise you for your inconsistency, then be assured that that is a sign of
a real person, not some ersatz personality created for usenet

and a merry christmas to you and to yours

phil innes

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

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

The Historian wrote:

Part of recovering from obesity is losing the mental baggage associated
with it. One piece of that baggage is the compulsion to answer trolls.
Or to feed them personal information, for that matter.

So then, you are afflicted with the same symptoms as
Mark Houlsby -- visions of "trolls" haunting you, day and
night? I'm not a trained professional, but my "chess
therapy" does seem to help him. The thing is, while
obsessively playing chess, the mind -- such that it is --
is kept busy and is not easily distracted by these, um,
visions.

Good luck with your obesity problem. I think it was one
of the two photographic "twins" who said that diet and
exercise were the key. I did some math, and sure enough,
a reduced caloric intake in conjunction with burning more
calories seems to work -- at least on paper! (And just
when I was about to recommend buying shares of Nutri-
System, a cure is found.)

-- help bot

Mark Houlsby wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
if there are

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

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

Incorrect. The subject of the phrase ``there [verb] a lot of
apostrophes'' is ``a lot of apostrophes'', which is a plural. (Since
I mean ``many apostrophes'', not ``an area of land full which is full
of apostrophes.'')


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".

Incorrect. Colons are an alternative to commas but certainly not
mandatory.

2) You omitted the full stop [period] after the closing quotation
marks, viz.:

He said: "Is that you?".

Incorrect. Do you also claim, ``He said: `It is I.'.'' ?


Of course, this only works in writing.


Ahem... this works *only* in writing.

Technically, it's a fair cop. The meaning was absolutely clear,
though.


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

Yes. Your punctuation is, frankly, mental and at odds with the vast
majority of books published in the English language in the last fifty
years, say.


Overall 3/10

See me after class.

I think it would be more appropriate if I took on the role of teacher,
here...


Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Mentholated Tongs (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a pair of tongs but it's
invigorating and it'll turn your
stomach!

David Richerby wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
if there are

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

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

Incorrect. The subject of the phrase ``there [verb] a lot of
apostrophes'' is ``a lot of apostrophes'',

Right.... "*is* A lot of apostrophes". Singular.

So: "There is a lot.".

or: "There are lots.".

Expanded:

"There is a lot of mistakes in Richerby's writing.".

or:

"There are lots of mistakes in Richerby's writing.".

which is a plural.

It's necessary, under the circumstances, to imagine the plural
participle not to be there. Just as I have explained above.

(Since
I mean ``many apostrophes'', not ``an area of land full which is full
of apostrophes.'')...

....you must use a participle consistent with the form of words which
you have chosen, so:

"There is a lot.".

or:

"There are lots.".



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".

Incorrect. Colons are an alternative to commas but certainly not
mandatory.


It may be an alternative, but many GRAMMARIANS (I am one), consider it
an inferior alternative. See my comment below.


2) You omitted the full stop [period] after the closing quotation
marks, viz.:

He said: "Is that you?".

Incorrect.

No, it's correct.

Do you also claim, ``He said: `It is I.'.'' ?


Yes, That's correct, but it's worth noting that the full stop [period]
immediately after the personal pronoun 'I', in your example, is
optional, so, for example:

"He said: 'It is I'.". would be correct, too, depending upon the
context.

Of course, this only works in writing.


Ahem... this works *only* in writing.

Technically, it's a fair cop. The meaning was absolutely clear,
though.


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

Yes. Your punctuation is, frankly, mental

....if accurate...

and at odds with the vast
majority of books published in the English language in the last fifty
years, say.


True, but that betrays only the fact that the standard of grammar
possessed by book editors has declined dramatically.


Overall 3/10

See me after class.

I think it would be more appropriate if I took on the role of teacher,
here...


Think whatever you wish. You may even think that you are correct. You
may even think that you are smart.

Mark

Mark Houlsby wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
if there are

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

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

Incorrect. The subject of the phrase ``there [verb] a lot of
apostrophes'' is ``a lot of apostrophes'',

Right.... "*is* A lot of apostrophes". Singular.

No. As I explained, the phrase `a lot of apostrophes' is a plural,
unless you mean `lot' in the sense of `parking lot', which I certainly
didn't.


which is a plural.

It's necessary, under the circumstances, to imagine the plural
participle not to be there. Just as I have explained above.

You explained nothing. You merely made a bogus assertion based on a
misunderstanding of English grammar.


1) There should be a *colon* (not a comma) after "He said".

Incorrect. Colons are an alternative to commas but certainly not
mandatory.

It may be an alternative, but many GRAMMARIANS (I am one), consider it
an inferior alternative. See my comment below.

`It' in this sentence can only reasonably refer to the subject of the
previous sentence. Since the subject of the previous sentence was the
plural, `colons',

1) you appear to be disagreeing with yourself by claiming now that
colons are inferior to commas;
2) you mean `they'.

Yes. Your punctuation is, frankly, mental

...if accurate...

Care to provide a citation?


and at odds with the vast majority of books published in the
English language in the last fifty years, say.

True, but that betrays only the fact that the standard of grammar
possessed by book editors has declined dramatically.

Oh, of course. The fact that you disagree with every major publishing
house, all the major newspapers and the BBC means that they're out of
step. Are you, by any chance, Tony Blair?


I think it would be more appropriate if I took on the role of
teacher, here...

Think whatever you wish. You may even think that you are
correct. You may even think that you are smart.

I may even think I'm wasting my time following up to a troll.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Simple Poisonous Gerbil (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a children's pet but it'll kill
you in seconds and it has no moving
parts!