On Apr 11, 9:24 pm, "Rob" wrote:

Bot,
Aren't you and I the same person?

Um, no. You are a complete patzer at chess,
while I (according to no less an authority than
Sanny) am "a star".


I am confused. Are you now atacking
yourself?

No. Only dimwits like Skippy Repa could confound
a patzer like you with a star like me!


Or am I attacking me?

In a way, yes. For example, every time you misspell
SIMPLE words like "attacking" as "atacking" (see above),
you undermine (a subtle form of attack) yourself indirectly.


Gosh. I just don't know. ANd since you

Note that only the first letter of the first word of a
sentence needs to be capitalized.

claim the Mr. Innes and I are the same person

The joke is that while you invariably defend him,
he often as not ignores attacks on you; this is not
entirely fair, IMO.


and others claim that
you and I are the same person then it holds as logic that you and Mr.
Innes may be the same person.

Um, no. Mr. Innes is a nearly-an-IM, while I am
merely a star. The difference lies in the nearly--
being-recognized by FIDE as a titled player, which
applies to him, but not to me. So far as FIDE is
concerned, I am persona non grata, whereas Mr.
Innes is, so he claims, a nearly-an-IM.


Actually since there is only one Polgar
sister according to recently published reports, maybe there is only
one chess player in the world? Sam Sloan is Bobby Fischer!

This only shows that published reports are not
reliable -- a fact which is already well-known by
those of us who can think, and thereby recognize
the obvious fact that a mere human has typed up
the contents of said reports. Humans are fallible,
ergo published reports are unreliable. The same
concept applies to books and even more so to
statistics. However, your assertion about SS and
BF has some rationality, in that both are similarly
mentally deranged and good at chess.

-- help bot

On Apr 12, 8:07 am, David Richerby
wrote:
Matt wrote:
Maybe someone can make a new chess ng for them:
rec.games.chess.bash.me.again.and.again
or maybe
rec.games.chess.it.hurts.when.i.post

It's called rec.games.chess.politics, isn't it? Alas, people keep
cross-posting out of the group...

I often see complaints regarding the quantity of
USCF-related discussion, and it would seem that
if that could be concentrated there, those who find
it annoying could simply nix that newsgroup from
their reading. The truth is, it should not be all that
difficult to chop rgcp into two sections: one for
USCF discussions, and one for everything else.

As for restricting personal attacks to rgcp, that
is a poor idea. For instance, suppose I wanted to
lambaste Rob Mitchell's analysis of a GM Kramnik
game which (properly) appeared in rgc.analysis --
should I post my attack under politics? I don't
think so. The attack clearly belongs under the
same forum as the aforementioned analysis; the
two ought to be directly connected. THEN I can
go to rgc.politics and post a related personal
attack in which I point out that RM is not a USCF
member, or if he is, his chess rating is so low
that his mother plays handball against the curb/
wears combat boots/etc. My ad hom. against
RM's "low IQ" belongs under rgc.misc, since it
is unrelated to game analysis or politics.

A place for everything, and everything to its
place. A time for flamewar, a time for peace.
To everything, turn, turn, turn
there is a seasom, turn, turn, turn

-- Byrds bot

On Apr 14, 6:03 pm, "help bot" wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:24 pm, "Rob" wrote:

Bot,
Aren't you and I the same person?

Um, no. You are a complete patzer at chess,
while I (according to no less an authority than
Sanny) am "a star".

I am confused. Are you now atacking
yourself?

No. Only dimwits like Skippy Repa could confound
a patzer like you with a star like me!

Or am I attacking me?

In a way, yes. For example, every time you misspell
SIMPLE words like "attacking" as "atacking" (see above),
you undermine (a subtle form of attack) yourself indirectly.

Gosh. I just don't know. ANd since you

Note that only the first letter of the first word of a
sentence needs to be capitalized.

claim the Mr. Innes and I are the same person

The joke is that while you invariably defend him,
he often as not ignores attacks on you; this is not
entirely fair, IMO.

and others claim that
you and I are the same person then it holds as logic that you and Mr.
Innes may be the same person.

Um, no. Mr. Innes is a nearly-an-IM, while I am
merely a star. The difference lies in the nearly--
being-recognized by FIDE as a titled player, which
applies to him, but not to me. So far as FIDE is
concerned, I am persona non grata, whereas Mr.
Innes is, so he claims, a nearly-an-IM.

Actually since there is only one Polgar
sister according to recently published reports, maybe there is only
one chess player in the world? Sam Sloan is Bobby Fischer!

This only shows that published reports are not
reliable -- a fact which is already well-known by
those of us who can think, and thereby recognize
the obvious fact that a mere human has typed up
the contents of said reports. Humans are fallible,
ergo published reports are unreliable. The same
concept applies to books and even more so to
statistics. However, your assertion about SS and
BF has some rationality, in that both are similarly
mentally deranged and good at chess.

-- help bot

Yes,
I am afflicted with the typo bug. It is a terrible disease and one
which I fear there is no cure for. Alas, It will have me undone!

On Apr 14, 9:33 pm, "Rob" wrote:

Yes,
I am afflicted with the typo bug. It is a terrible disease and one
which I fear there is no cure for. Alas, It will have me undone!

Be careful; you don't want to start sounding like
Larry Evans -- a man who attempted to claim that
each successive spelling/date blunder was merely
a "typo", when in fact it was something else. A
compilation of these items already appeared in an
ad hom. piece by Edward Winter, and boy was it
a Doosey!

BTW, a "typo" is where you accidentally type a
wrong letter or something like that; these tend to
be random, and an obvious example might be
where I type "hhelp bpt" in place of "help bot".

But if I have trouble with *spelling*, a very
different pattern emerges. For instance:
"But if I have trubble with speling, a diferent
patern emirgiz." Can you detect this difference,
I wonder?

-- help butt