Chess One wrote:

The genius poster is at it again.

Compared with you, even an eggplant might seem like a genius.

This time with his 'random' messages.

They're not at all random. For some time we've been trying to get it to
penetrate your remarkably thick skull that *all* of the problems which
you describe in these groups are *of your own making*. To this end, we
have employed assiduousness, aphorism, allusion, citation, you name
it...but, somehow, you are never the culprit, even when the evidence
*clearly indicates* that, in fact, you are.

He
is citing an abuser who abused a woman poster several hundred times, even to
deliberately misspelling her name. She too, like me, and like actual
linguist, historians, anthropologists, all thought Anglo Saxon still very
evidently a part of modern English - this was her crime, mine was pointing
out that this was no occassion for abuse.


No, Phil, that was *not* the argument, Read the ****ing post.

It is no use appealing to them

Yet you keep writing. Why do you keep writing Phil? Just shut the ****
up and read, for a change.

that two friends of mine, both with PhD's in
English both immediately identified the Churchill as all A. Sax. Since as
you will see, this Webb fellow has demonstrated below why 'Absolut' ly it
cannot be, and Brennun then illustrates that truth with his own 4 memorable
words.

Since so much writing is of this nature, or rather, without recourse to any
nature, but suggestive of what 'we' agree, it is worth a read!


Well, I did provide links. Once again, you appear to be on your own.

"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mark Houlsby wrote:

It's "everyone" (except you) who has ever expressed an opinion about
Phil Innes. It's certainly true that most people don't give a ****
about him, because they've never attempted to communicate with him.
Those of us who have, well, we tend to form strikingly similar opinions
of Phil. This is even true (Neil tells me) of, for example, members of
the HLAS group.

Here's a typical example, taken at random:

*************
Dr. David Webb:

I don't have time for h.l.a.s. now, so I don't intend to waste much
time on its resident nutcases, particularly the least comprehensible
ones; however, a regard for accuracy, if nothing else, compels (or if
Mr. Innes prefers, "campels")

This Webb fellow doesn't recognise an A. Sax word for asking questions, and
confuses it with compels. Not a good start, but, now to his point...?

me to set the record straight. Mr. Innes
has, as usual, misunderstood my objection. I reproduce below what I
wrote earlier:
---------------------------------------------------

You know, populated like
'seeded'.

If that is what Mr. Innes means, then he is *very* badly misinformed

I suppose Webb never noticed that Microsoft use the term as well, when they
'populate' fonts, for example, in their dialog box.


ROFLMAO we all defer to Microsoft, naturally!

-- not that that fact will come as any surprise to anyone who still
bothers to read his posts.

Like Housleby this character likes to talk of everyone's surprise

Do I? Where?

- but I am
still waiting to read some point of his own which would qualify these
'everypeople' as interested in the topic.


Instead of "waiting to read", try reading. And not writing.

The meaning of the phrase "Old English," as
well as the grammatical structure of the language and its lexicon and
history,

Webb involves these details of Old English as he calls it, while
simultaneously not recognising the grammar and the 'lexicon' of Churchill's
speech as being entirely A Sax. [Nor Armstrong's]


Entirely A Sax. it is not, clearly.

But it is I, he suggests to 'everyone', who do not understand this, whereas
he infers he does know 'the meaning' of Old English. Which [ROFL] is not any
actual language, but rather a collective pronoun for groups of languages
spoken in England, as diverse as West Saxon Englisc and Norse.


Where in England are these spoken?

This sort of abstract authoritarianism is enough to convince and even
delight Brennan, who is then encouraged to utter the joke of the year at the
bottom of the post.


Neil is, indeed, witty, yet I fear that his wit may be beyond yours.

was well established long before anyone in this newsgroup was
born, and is very widely known (indeed, it is probably well known to
every participant in this newsgroup except Mr. Innes and Elizabeth
Weird).

The woman's name is spelled Weir.


It is. Neil was employing what's commonly known as a "pun". I realise
that this may be beyond your wit to grasp.

No "Leader" in this newsgroup can have "populated" those
ideas.

Webb denies he has led the abuse of all those who have not agreed with him,
which are very many more than /have/ done so or even understood a certain
agnostic attitude to facts-as-we-know-them, and specifically that he has
scapegoated this woman on the basis of his /own/ utterly spurious
understanding.


To you, Phil, anyone who disagrees with you is an abuser. This is
typical of mentally ill people. You need to see a psychiatrist.

This shadenfreude

....as opposed to: "lightenfreude", mayhap?

appraoch delights Brennan, who likes authorities,
especially vague ones and male ones! ROFL


You're seriously deluded, Phil.

Rather unbelievably these remarks are common in a humanities thread on
Shakespeare - a noted attavist, as much as Chaucer and Gower to A. Sax
origins, including changing his own name to concur with it.

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

To recapitulate, it is clear to all but the irremediably ignorant
that neither I nor anyone else in this newsgroup could have "populated"
or "seeded" the utterly commonplace idea that a language is more than
its mere stock of words (so that someone who speaks some two dozen
words

Webb has made a straw-man here since he cannot quote me to contest an issue.

No, the strawman is yours. His contention--about a language's
consisting of more than just its lexicon--is accurate.

Instead he invents an attitude. He studiously avoids the fact that 49 or 50
of Churchills words were A. Sax, and entirely grammatical, indeed
Shakespearean!


Which 49 or 50? Were they all to be found in one passage, or were they
scattered?
etymologically derived from Anglo-Saxon is not speaking Old English
unless he or she adheres to that language's grammar and syntax),

Webb suggests that he knows the grammar of speech of Anglo Saxon

He is doing nothing of the sort, you illiterate ****. He's making a
point about language *in general*.

- he is
thereby the only person on Earth making this claim.


No, that would be YOU, Phil Innes. The problem is YOU, Phil Innes. The
problem is YOU, Phil Innes.

It doesn't seem to matter to him that almost all of Churchill's speech is
rendered in A. Sax - that would be too specific for his purposes - and
besides, would explode his own straw-man argument. Slippery, isn't he?


No, he isn't. He's absolutely consistent, which, alas, cannot be said
for you.

My remarks were to the point that 100 most used English words are STILL A.
Sax. We can assume by their spelling that they were pronounced similarly, or
with some degree of difference.

Well, that covers it.

There is no doubt to their origin, but this
is not the level of his rejection of the subject - factual basis of argument
requires so much more study and attention than mouthing off and suggesting
instead of demonstrating some knowledge.


Physician heal thyself.

snips an inordinate amount of Innesian BS

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:19:38 GMT):
7 ... Kingston's Botched Question
7
7 The Brave and the Vague are too shy to even say at a
7 distance if they think authors should be banned from
7 defending their books. He won't answer that question.
7
7 After holding /very strong/ opinions in private, but being
7 unable to discuss the subject of book censorship in public, ...
_
I wrote (29 Dec 2006 12:21:03 -0800):
7 "... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
7 banning, and I have never said you have written them
7 'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor
7 Kingston) (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:15:14 GMT)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 20:25:48 GMT):
7 ... if Blair really wanted to know anything he would
7 ask Kingston directly, but he doesn't.
_
I wrote (29 Dec 2006 14:49:03 -0800):
7 "... my purpose is to determine whether or
7 not Phil Innes maintains that there is writing
7 about book-banning in the Taylor Kingston
7 emails. Only Phil Innes knows what he
7 maintains. ..." - Louis Blair (17 Dec 2006
7 14:36:37 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:29:46 GMT):

7 My purpose has been to suggest to Blair that he
7 ask Kingston directly,

_
"... Only Phil Innes knows what he maintains.
..." - Louis Blair (17 Dec 2006 14:36:37 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:29:46 GMT):

7 otherwise Blair can only guess-out-loud instead of
7 'determining' anything, as he puts it.

_
The alternative that I choose is to declare, to Phil Innes,
my interest in whether or not he maintains that there is
writing about book-banning in the Taylor Kingston emails.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:29:46 GMT):

7 Previously Blair assured Matt Nemmers that Kingston
7 had said it was okay for me to post his opinions in
7 public,

_
That is categorically false.
_
"... Phil Innes should apologize promptly. It was
MATT NEMMERS who tried to convince ME that
Phil Innes had permission.
_
'Louis, TK gave [Phil Innes] permission.
...' - Matt Nemmers (1 Nov 2006
22:09:48 -0800)
_
Taylor Kingston directed a correction to Matt
Nemmers.
_
'Not so, Matt. ...' - Taylor Kingston
(2 Nov 2006 16:05:18 -0800) ..."
- Louis Blair (5 Nov 2006 11:01:04 -0800)
_
_
"This is correct and obviously, my mistake. ..."
- Matt Nemmers (5 Nov 2006 20:23:04 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:29:46 GMT):

7 then had to back-pedal and hide when he was wrong!

_
More fantasy. I, of course, had no need to "back-pedal"
from a position that I had not taken.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:29:46 GMT):

7 Since I have written that Kingston's activities include
7 Kingston's views on the subject of authors being banned
7 from Chesscafe's forum, as well as a mass of other
7 material which Kingston neither affirms nor denies, what
7 sort of proof Blair wants is as watery as his 'purpose'.

_
"... my purpose is to determine whether or
not Phil Innes maintains that there is writing
about BOOK-banning in the Taylor Kingston
emails. ..." - Louis Blair (17 Dec 2006
14:36:37 -0800) (Emphasis added.)
_
Note that there is nothing in there about me wanting proof
that there is writing about BOOK-banning in the Taylor
Kingston emails.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:29:46 GMT):

7 Perhaps continuously suggesting there is no proof of
7 anything while not taking the obvious steps to actively
7 investigate it will /ensure/ that only I know about it?

_
I AM taking the obvious step to actively investigate whether
or not Phil Innes maintains that there is writing about BOOK
-banning in the Taylor Kingston emails. I declare my
interest to Phil Innes.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:29:46 GMT):

7 Blair doesn't care to ask Kingston,

_
"... Only Phil Innes knows what he maintains.
..." - Louis Blair (17 Dec 2006 14:36:37 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:29:46 GMT):

7 so what is this 'Nelson' opinion worth?
7
7 When asked a direct question himself Blair ducks it,

_
"... one should be prepared to be specific about
the charge and the evidence when making a
public attack. Asking for such specifics does
not oblige one to respond to every random
question that comes along." - Louis Blair
(30 Dec 2006 15:10:05 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:29:46 GMT):

7 by pretending that he hasn't read or understood my
7 remarks on Kingston's e-mail campaign, ...

_
No such pretending is taking place.

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

When asked a direct question himself Blair ducks it, by pretending that
he
hasn't read or understood my remarks on Kingston's e-mail campaign,
THEREFORE he is still trying to determine if I 'maintain'...


No, the reason for his continuing diligence is his fervent desire to
protect his integrity, as you have already been told. Which question
did he duck, BTW? Be specific.

What's it to you? Be as specific as you demand of others. Blair's fervent
diligence does not extend to his own activities, and he pretends he isn't
there making selections like a metaphysical-guru. You might note that
help-bot tripped him up on this recently.

If YOU are interested in Kingston's Kampaign, you might ask Kingston too,
otherwise you are as vacuous as ever, and continue to demand things as if
you even understood what the topic is.

PI

Mark Houlsby

zzz

Phil Innes

PS: I have corrected thread drift here from 'botched question' to 'ask no
question'

Chess One wrote:

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

When asked a direct question himself Blair ducks it, by pretending that
he
hasn't read or understood my remarks on Kingston's e-mail campaign,
THEREFORE he is still trying to determine if I 'maintain'...


No, the reason for his continuing diligence is his fervent desire to
protect his integrity, as you have already been told. Which question
did he duck, BTW? Be specific.

What's it to you? Be as specific as you demand of others. Blair's fervent
diligence does not extend to his own activities, and he pretends he isn't
there making selections like a metaphysical-guru. You might note that
help-bot tripped him up on this recently.


Evasion noted.

If YOU are interested in Kingston's Kampaign, you might ask Kingston too,
otherwise you are as vacuous as ever, and continue to demand things as if
you even understood what the topic is.


Evasion noted.

MH

PI

Mark Houlsby

zzz

Phil Innes

PS: I have corrected thread drift here from 'botched question' to 'ask no
question'

On Jan 2, 10:20 am, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:

Chess One wrote:

If YOU are interested in Kingston's Kampaign, you might ask Kingston too,
otherwise you are as vacuous as ever, and continue to demand things as if
you even understood what the topic is.

Evasion noted.

Mark, feel free to ask me about "Kingston's Kampaign" any time you
like. It's been quite a while since I did any campaigning at all, but I
do remember a few interesting stories about the time I worked for
Eugene McCarthy's presidential bid in 1968.

Phil Innes wrote (to Mark Houlsby)
(Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:30:27 GMT):

7 ... Be as specific as you demand of others. Blair's fervent
7 diligence does not extend to his own activities, and he
7 pretends he isn't there making selections like a
7 metaphysical-guru. You might note that help-bot tripped
7 him up on this recently.

_
Foolishness. Phil Innes himself chooses the nonspecific
approach.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Jan 2, 10:20 am, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:

Chess One wrote:

If YOU are interested in Kingston's Kampaign, you might ask Kingston too,
otherwise you are as vacuous as ever, and continue to demand things as if
you even understood what the topic is.

Evasion noted.

Mark, feel free to ask me about "Kingston's Kampaign" any time you
like. It's been quite a while since I did any campaigning at all, but I
do remember a few interesting stories about the time I worked for
Eugene McCarthy's presidential bid in 1968.

Ok Taylor, here goes:

about "Kingston's Kampaign"?

Louis Blair wrote:

Phil Innes wrote (to Mark Houlsby)
(Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:30:27 GMT):

7 ... Be as specific as you demand of others. Blair's fervent
7 diligence does not extend to his own activities, and he
7 pretends he isn't there making selections like a
7 metaphysical-guru. You might note that help-bot tripped
7 him up on this recently.

_
Foolishness. Phil Innes himself chooses the nonspecific
approach.

"You're just realizing this now?"
--"Gail" a.k.a. Julie Kavner, in "Hannah and her Sisters", dir. Woody
Allen, 1986

On Jan 2, 4:27 pm, "Mark Houlsby" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 2, 10:20 am, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:

Chess One wrote:

If YOU are interested in Kingston's Kampaign, you might ask Kingston too,
otherwise you are as vacuous as ever, and continue to demand things as if
you even understood what the topic is.

Evasion noted.

Mark, feel free to ask me about "Kingston's Kampaign" any time you
like. It's been quite a while since I did any campaigning at all, but I
do remember a few interesting stories about the time I worked for
Eugene McCarthy's presidential bid in 1968.

Ok Taylor, here goes:
about "Kingston's Kampaign"?

In 1968 I was a freshman at the University of California at San
Diego. The Vietnam War was dragging on, and as on many university
campuses, anti-war sentiment was growing, but the mainstream
politicians didn't seem to be listening. Many of us young idealists
were inspired by the candidacy of Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota,
who sought the Democratic nomination and opposed the war policies of
the Johnson administration. So I worked for McCarthy. He didn't really
have much of a chance, but the support he rallied would have been very
helpful to Bobby Kennedy, who gradually became more anti-war as the
campaign went on. Of course, that all ended in ashes when RFK was
assassinated.
I remember one mildly humorous moment (though a Brit might not get
this joke). A bunch of us bused up to Los Angeles to do some
door-to-door campaigning there. A few movie/TV stars dropped by to give
us a pep talk. My group was addressed by Leonard Nimoy. He said if
someone asks how he gets those pointed ears when he plays Spock on Star
Trek, he tells them he uses Richard Nixon's makeup man. In the evening
James Coburn came by to give us a verbal pat on the back. Some days
later, back in San Diego, I got to pat Senator McCarthy himself on the
back, as he was going to the podium to speak in Balboa Park.
That probably is not what Innes is thinking about, but, aside from
running for student body president when I was in high school, that's
really all the campaigning I've ever done. Innes would have you believe
that I have "campaigned" to "ban" various chess authors, but that is a
figment of his fetid fevered imagination.
This is just another of Phil's many smears, where he makes vague
claims of damning evidence, but somehow he never actually produces
anything but hot air. Reminds me of a different Senator McCarthy, the
one named Joe.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Jan 2, 4:27 pm, "Mark Houlsby" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 2, 10:20 am, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:

Chess One wrote:

If YOU are interested in Kingston's Kampaign, you might ask Kingston too,
otherwise you are as vacuous as ever, and continue to demand things as if
you even understood what the topic is.

Evasion noted.

Mark, feel free to ask me about "Kingston's Kampaign" any time you
like. It's been quite a while since I did any campaigning at all, but I
do remember a few interesting stories about the time I worked for
Eugene McCarthy's presidential bid in 1968.

Ok Taylor, here goes:
about "Kingston's Kampaign"?

In 1968 I was a freshman at the University of California at San
Diego. The Vietnam War was dragging on, and as on many university
campuses, anti-war sentiment was growing, but the mainstream
politicians didn't seem to be listening. Many of us young idealists
were inspired by the candidacy of Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota,
who sought the Democratic nomination and opposed the war policies of
the Johnson administration. So I worked for McCarthy. He didn't really
have much of a chance, but the support he rallied would have been very
helpful to Bobby Kennedy, who gradually became more anti-war as the
campaign went on. Of course, that all ended in ashes when RFK was
assassinated.
I remember one mildly humorous moment (though a Brit might not get
this joke). A bunch of us bused up to Los Angeles to do some
door-to-door campaigning there. A few movie/TV stars dropped by to give
us a pep talk. My group was addressed by Leonard Nimoy. He said if
someone asks how he gets those pointed ears when he plays Spock on Star
Trek, he tells them he uses Richard Nixon's makeup man.

LOL! I *do* get it.

Ah! Tricky Dicky! How we miss him. And his VP/successor, too.

In the evening
James Coburn came by to give us a verbal pat on the back. Some days
later, back in San Diego, I got to pat Senator McCarthy himself on the
back, as he was going to the podium to speak in Balboa Park.
That probably is not what Innes is thinking about, but, aside from
running for student body president when I was in high school, that's
really all the campaigning I've ever done. Innes would have you believe
that I have "campaigned" to "ban" various chess authors, but that is a
figment of his fetid fevered imagination.

Yeah, I already knew this.

This is just another of Phil's many smears, where he makes vague
claims of damning evidence, but somehow he never actually produces
anything but hot air. Reminds me of a different Senator McCarthy, the
one named Joe.

I know *exactly* what you mean.

They say that of all of the "fils Kennedy", Joe jr. most probably would
have made the best President, had he not been killed in WWII.

Thanks for pitching in.

Mark