"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?
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, 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...

wrote:

"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?
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, 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...

I had the same thought, but then I looked a little deeper. One
quotation marks properly, the other improperly uses apostrophes
around quotations. One puts the period/comma insidethe quote,
the other outside.

Guy Macon wrote:
wrote:

"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?
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, 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...

I had the same thought, but then I looked a little deeper. One
quotation marks properly, the other improperly uses apostrophes
around quotations. One puts the period/comma insidethe quote,
the other outside.

Google search me. I am a real person

Just remember what Einstein said when Germany set dozens of well know
scientists against him to disprove his theories," If I were wrong, only
one scientist would have been needed."

I can infer that is why Americans love the underdog. Usually that which
is right and honorable has to stand alone.

Rob

Rob wrote:

Guy Macon wrote:
wrote:

"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?
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, 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...

I had the same thought, but then I looked a little deeper. One
quotation marks properly, the other improperly uses apostrophes
around quotations. One puts the period/comma insidethe quote,
the other outside.

Google search me. I am a real person

Just remember what Einstein said when Germany set dozens of well know
scientists against him to disprove his theories," If I were wrong, only
one scientist would have been needed."

I can infer that is why Americans love the underdog. Usually that which
is right and honorable has to stand alone.


No doubt that is why Innes and you are keen to seem inseparable... two
of a kind.

Mark

On Dec 17, 1:30 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
wrote:

"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?
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, 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...

I had the same thought, but then I looked a little deeper. 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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rob Mitchell is a /decent/ man, 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.

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

Phil Innes

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?

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.

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*.

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,

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.


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*?

Gee........

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 17, 1:30 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
wrote:

"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?
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, 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...

I had the same thought, but then I looked a little deeper. 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."

He also uses some bizarre language, or as he calls it, a "loangauge",
that has no known grammar.

Rob wrote:


Just remember what Einstein said when Germany set dozens of well know
scientists against him to disprove his theories," If I were wrong, only
one scientist would have been needed."


This is the first time I have heard of this. Do you have
any more details?

-- help bot

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

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

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 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.

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.

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

Gee........

Golly Gee.

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes

Rob