On Oct 30, 9:17 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:00:58 -0700, help bot
wrote:

On Oct 29, 5:48 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
pfft!
Lacks a vowel, no?

He was quoting Otis' friend, Bill the Cat. Personal growth thing.
He's trying to expand beyond Daffy Duck.

Okay, I admit it: I don't know Otis or Bill the Cat. But I am
familiar with Daffy Duck. Say, if IM Innes was quoting, then
why did he leave out the quotation marks on both ends, eh?
Looks suspicious to me... .


And "pfft" still lacks a vowel. I guess that means it is
spoken by passing air over the palate, without vibrating
the vocal chords. Hmmm. Ahhhh.


-- help bot

On Oct 30, 11:29 am, "Chess One" wrote:

All this stalking of Neil Brennan by IM Innes is tedious and
boring. Surely the nearly-an-IM can find something to do
besides stalk NB. How about writing about chess, for a
change?

-- bored bot

Oh, but he's amusing at times. I loved the comment about my
"suggestion" that Innes is a hysteric, and Innes confirming "it' is
actually what happens." QED.

Neil Brennan jokes about his own grossly indecent suggestion, about an
abuse-anon who only stalks those who contradict him.

Nonsense; everyone knows who Chess One is, so
referring to him as an "anon" is ridiculous!


Here he is trying to gloss the fact, while as usual ignoring all chess
content and rubbishing other people. Greg Kennedy also thinks its funny, so
reverses the relationship.

Neither of them have made any comment about an actual issue here = which has
to do with background checks for those who would have to do with our kids in
chess, which Sam Sloan is too busy to notice - right! And they are too busy
abusing to aver.

FYI: that was *not* the subject of discussion. (Check
the thread title for yourself.)

Somebody mentioned /en passant/ that IM Innes' posts
were boring, and I agreed, citing his never-ending stalking
of Neil Brennan as an case in point. At least critics like
Edward Winter and Larry Parr are *entertaining* when they
ad homize their victims; this IM Innes seems to have no
imagination, no style other than self-indulgence, poor
spelling and over-acting.

If he wrote about chess instead of just bashing other
posters, his dull stuff might be tolerable; as it is, it has
been observed and confirmed that his stuff is boring,
repetitive, and tedious. :(

Lacking in ideas? How about this: write about why
the Evans ratpackers seem to be the only ones here
who have, quite mysteriously, not "seen" the reports
posted repeatedly by Sam Sloan, referred to as the
Motters, the Muppets, no... the Mottersbury...um, no.
Whatever they are called -- you know what I mean:
these are the reports you have seen but keep
pretending you have not. Write a nice article
explaining the ratpack's strategy, and how LP came
up with it and why the usual strategy of ad hominem
was rejected in favor of the hear-no-evil, see-no-evil
routine. Or maybe a nice article on the Benko
Gambit?


-- help bot

On Oct 30, 2:24 pm, samsloan wrote:

Innes seems to have directed this towards me. I have been finger
printed and I passed the background check that was required when I was
hired as a chess teacher in the New York City Public Schools.

For gosh sakes -- did they not have computers back
then with which to link into the FBI's mainframe?


On the other hand, I would really like to know what the background is
of Phil Innes, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell and Paul Truong. I suspect
that they all have several names. Why in there no record in England
for such a great player as "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes?

I expect that way back then, the developers of chess
ratings systems considered Phil Innes to be an anomaly;
a FREAK outlier who could safely be ignored. Whoops...
I meant of course that his *results* would have been so
considered! Sorry about that.

No, Mr. Sloan, it appears that even IM Innes himself
has subsequently acknowledged that his claim to a 2450
rating was, to put it bluntly, a lie. After being outed, Mr.
Innes admitted that both his title and rating were fakes,
not unlike the impostors who posted their supposed
"satire" here.

Did they try the CIA? I mean, how could those Bozos
have misplaced your fingerprints... unless they were not
really mislaid, but *purloined*? A coverup, instigated at
the highest levels, obviously because Mr. Sloan has ties
with undercover operations relating to investigations of
prostitution rings... oops! My bad. Not another word
from me about this top sec...........

*******************
**********************************************
*********************************************
******************************************


** **** ***

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:25:39 -0700, help bot
wrote:


Okay, I admit it: I don't know Otis or Bill the Cat.

Partly my fault -- it was Opus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_the_cat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(comic_strip)

See, with Usenet one can get a liberal education.

Just to let you know we went through the background checks issue on my
FIDE-chess yahoo group at length and nobody agreed with Innes or his
sidekick Ron ("the Robber") Mitchell who want background checks for
everybody but themselves.

First of all, 'went through' the issue of background checks means what? Will
Sam Sloan agree to take one or not? Does he think that it is an impersonal
measure, considered normal in all American institutions to do with
children - even the boyscouts and little league - or think chess should be
exempted?

His statement that 'Ron' Mitchell and I don't want ourselves checked is
without any evidence he presents - and is the REAL measure of his sincerity.

In sum, every public school does background checks on its employees
nowadays. However, the USCF should not get into the business of
background checks. We will not catch anybody.

'We'??? USCF doesn't do the checking.

If it happens that
somebody slips through and gets arrested (like Robert Snyder for
example) we will be liable and get sued because we said he was OK.

If, as other example, YOU got through, would USCF be sued? Independent
authority makes background checks.

Better to just let the schools take responsibility for that.

This is to do with the security of children - and although same Sloan says
'his' group has 'went through' it, I wonder what that can possibly mean?

The issue is the same, in fact rather greater, with non-scholastic youth
activities, such as little league and boy scouts.

Innes seems to have directed this towards me.

If Sloan thinks standards are 'directed' towards him, he is correct! But in
fact they are 'directed' at everyone having to do, actively or passivley,
with the wellfare of children.

I have been finger
printed and I passed the background check that was required when I was
hired as a chess teacher in the New York City Public Schools.

So Sam Sloan would have no objection? Is that what is being said?

On the other hand, I would really like to know what the background is
of Phil Innes, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell and Paul Truong. I suspect
that they all have several names. Why in there no record in England
for such a great player as "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes?

I am just interviewing Michael Adams who I knew years ago - but I think if
even if the pope showed up, Sam Sloan would continue to have doubts - and of
course, these are not rational doubts, they are the preamble for firing me
from 'his' newsgroup, where the Sloanistas flock.

All tyrants need rational reasons to behave badly - there are hardly any
exceptions.
---

SUMMARY - Without any address to (a) why background checks are normal in
society [which has to do with kids, not organizational security], Sam Sloan
seems to be (b) arguing against it, but (c) not clearly so.

As an address to a serious issue that the entire population consider
important, I would say his responses are flippant and evasive.

Phil Innes
Vermont

Sam Sloan

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

Greg Kennedy has defined himself as entirely trivial.

No, Mr. Sloan, it appears that even IM Innes himself
has subsequently acknowledged that his claim to a 2450
rating was, to put it bluntly, a lie.

It is pointedly a lie. Repeating it is also to lie. I said I played at 2400
level. Currently I am managing 2285 on the same server where you managed
1300. Nevermind in Sanny-Land 1300 is considered near-genius level.


After being outed, Mr.
Innes admitted that both his title and rating were fakes,
not unlike the impostors who posted their supposed
"satire" here.

I admit I see a certain evasiveness is present in all these issues about
fakery - and those who agitate the most are those who generate most abuse.

When it comes to discussion of normal standards in society, such people
consider those 'attacks' on their right to trash-as-usual.

Phil Innes

On Oct 30, 2:24 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Oct 30, 12:29 pm, "Chess One" wrote:





"The Historian" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 30, 2:51 am, help bot wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:17 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Well, in a world where the FBI is allegedly investigating people who
find you tedious....

There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely,
it's
not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
least one of these people?

Well, we shall see!

Since Brennan is a known stalker, if you complain, then this is in this
country, invigilated by the FBI, who also flash their jurisdisdiction
before
every video or cd you rent.

Brennan is a hate-merchant. If you don't understand that, look at any
previous 100 posts he makes in any newsgroup. He suggests that this is
some
hysteric reaction to himself, while it is actually what happens.

Brennan is such a character that the fellow who followed my reactions
to his
posts, and who talked of sucking and ****ing my family members, was
suggested by Brennan to be my own writing.

All this stalking of Neil Brennan by IM Innes is tedious and
boring. Surely the nearly-an-IM can find something to do
besides stalk NB. How about writing about chess, for a
change?

-- bored bot

Oh, but he's amusing at times. I loved the comment about my
"suggestion" that Innes is a hysteric, and Innes confirming "it' is
actually what happens." QED.

Neil Brennan jokes about his own grossly indecent suggestion, about an
abuse-anon who only stalks those who contradict him.

Here he is trying to gloss the fact, while as usual ignoring all chess
content and rubbishing other people. Greg Kennedy also thinks its funny, so
reverses the relationship.

Neither of them have made any comment about an actual issue here = which has
to do with background checks for those who would have to do with our kids in
chess, which Sam Sloan is too busy to notice - right! And they are too busy
abusing to aver.

PI

Just to let you know we went through the background checks issue on my
FIDE-chess yahoo group at length and nobody agreed with Innes or his
sidekick Ron ("the Robber") Mitchell who want background checks for
everybody but themselves.

Poor SIlly Sam... Can't even get my name right! LOL

Ihave passed several background checks both with Kroll and through the
US Secret Service.

In sum, every public school does background checks on its employees
nowadays. However, the USCF should not get into the business of
background checks. We will not catch anybody. If it happens that
somebody slips through and gets arrested (like Robert Snyder for
example) we will be liable and get sued because we said he was OK.
Better to just let the schools take responsibility for that.

There is no liability. That passes to the exam company. Next red
herring please? oh oh! there is new legislation pending in congress
that would put you in prison for the content on your website! Isnt
that exciting!

Innes seems to have directed this towards me. I have been finger
printed and I passed the background check that was required when I was
hired as a chess teacher in the New York City Public Schools.

Right. WHat name did you use? Did you use a fake SS number too? LOL
And NYC schools ? I doubt and challenge the validity of anything you
purport.

On the other hand, I would really like to know what the background is
of Phil Innes, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell and Paul Truong. I suspect
that they all have several names. Why in there no record in England
for such a great player as "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes?

What do you want to know that I have not already told you or I have
not posted myself on the internet? You have my resume already. What a
joke you are Sam.
Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...

There is no liability. That passes to the exam company. Next red
herring please? oh oh! there is new legislation pending in congress
that would put you in prison for the content on your website! Isnt
that exciting!

Its just a mock debate, Rob. Means absolutely nothing when your
correspondent is as insincere as to illustrate his thinking with 'went
through' statements in his own little empire, and where dissenting views
were fired!

How much fairer could you get?

---

One interesting thing in recent surveys in chess groups is that when you ask
about this idea of background checks the majority of respondents will argue
by rational means about the security/liability of the organisation, citing
statistics and so on, as recently appeared in the WSJ article: whereas if
you ask how people /feel/, by inquiring about their own kids, you get
responses like, given chess camp A with background checks and chess camp B
without, the former, every time!


This is not a Sloan issue, except that he would be implicated. along with
everyone else. having to do with kids in chess.

It will be interesting to see what the ECF and the Dutch have to say about
their own countries, if they think the measure is electional, and if they
have implemented any measures how effective they think they are, both
objectively in preventing unwonted abuse and indecency, and also as above,
in encouraging a level of confidence with parents.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

No, Mr. Sloan, it appears that even IM Innes himself
has subsequently acknowledged that his claim to a 2450
rating was, to put it bluntly, a lie.

It is pointedly a lie. Repeating it is also to lie. I said I played at 2400
level.

Don't try to haggle; the number is and always will be
2450, per the Google archives. One cannot haggle
with facts (only with prices).

Besides, if I had known you wanted to haggle, I of
course would have started off with a ridiculously
inflated number, like say, 2900+, and then you could
say you had claimed it was 1300+, and we go from
there.


Currently I am managing 2285 on the same server where you managed
1300.

GetClub? But I was 1400+, as everyone knows!
In fact, I am now /ahead of/ T. Kingstonite with two
different identities, in spite of the dramatic ratings
deflation since he quit playing there. Top that, fella.


Nevermind in Sanny-Land 1300 is considered near-genius level.

True. As the Master level is now somewhere
around 400-500, it requires a certain level of play,
or genius if you prefer, to get so high. Very few
have managed it, although admittedly, anyone with
a real chess program could.


After being outed, Mr.
Innes admitted that both his title and rating were fakes,
not unlike the impostors who posted their supposed
"satire" here.

I admit I see a certain evasiveness is present in all these issues about
fakery - and those who agitate the most are those who generate most abuse.

Pot and Kettle! IMO, Mr. Sloan is merely a gold-
digger; he likely wants the USCF to buy him an
island in the South Pacific and stock it with food,
wine and /very young/ women. (Poor timing, if you
ask me; SS is so old that would be a horrible waste.)



When it comes to discussion of normal standards in society, such people
consider those 'attacks' on their right to trash-as-usual.

Okay, if IM Innes is truly interested in the issue he
raises, then why is it that it only comes up in self-
defense? Why does it always show up when the
nearly-an-IM is under fire, and why is it never the
main subject of his attentions otherwise? This
smacks of more fakery.


But anyway, he is an idea relating to this issue:
instead of trying to root out every "criminal" with a
prior record of child abuse, why not instead try to
set up scholastic tournaments such that the
opportunity for abuses are few and far between?

Let me give a somewhat related example: instead
of allowing a potential whacko to stay at your house,
make other arrangements so that your kids will be
safe whether he is a threat to them or not. It's a bit
like prophylaxis in chess; you "over protect" certain
points (like children, for instance), just in case of
danger. Granted, this playing style sucks, but then,
what do you want: to win in a pleasing style or to
not risk losing? In chess, it's okay to take crazy
chances if you like the odds, but with your kids, it's
better to just play it safe and boring.


-- help bot

On Oct 31, 9:19 am, Rob wrote:

Just to let you know we went through the background checks issue on my
FIDE-chess yahoo group at length and nobody agreed with Innes or his
sidekick Ron ("the Robber") Mitchell who want background checks for
everybody but themselves.

Poor SIlly Sam... Can't even get my name right! LOL

Spelling aside, how can SS call RM "the Robber"
when according to his own version of the story, the
"robbery" failed? Doesn't that make RM a mere
wannabe-robber or something? I mean look: there
were Jesse James, Billy the Kid, and many others
who are more deserving of the title.


In sum, every public school does background checks on its employees
nowadays. However, the USCF should not get into the business of
background checks. We will not catch anybody. If it happens that
somebody slips through and gets arrested (like Robert Snyder for
example) we will be liable and get sued because we said he was OK.
Better to just let the schools take responsibility for that.

There is no liability. That passes to the exam company. Next red
herring please?

Can we get that confirmed by a real lawyer?


oh oh! there is new legislation pending in congress
that would put you in prison for the content on your website! Isnt
that exciting!

Effective *retroactively*? That would make SS an
important criminal! On top of all his other accomplishments
(which are far too many to list here).


Innes seems to have directed this towards me. I have been finger
printed and I passed the background check that was required when I was
hired as a chess teacher in the New York City Public Schools.

Could this explain why the need for a move to
Crossville? With no decent players emerging in
the N.Y. area, perhaps they wanted to try their
luck elsewhere... . ;D


On the other hand, I would really like to know what the background is
of Phil Innes, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell and Paul Truong. I suspect
that they all have several names. Why in there no record in England
for such a great player as "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes?

I think it is because the entire time he was there,
the press and the mass media were obsessing over
a fellow named Paul Morphy, who had come over
from one of the colonies to challenge Mr. Staunton.
In one offhand game, IM Innes effected a criss-cross
mate against Harrwitz using two Bishops and a neat
Queen sacrifice -- the first time this combination had
ever been seen; yet afterwards, the press mistakenly
attributed this idea to the victim himself! You just
can't trust those people. Of course, IM Innes never
won any recorded tournaments or matches, but this
was because he refused to play serious games, for
money. "I already have more money that I could
ever desire", said he, in a tone indicating his great
disgust for pecuniary concerns. "I play only for
honor", he muttered, again and again. All the top
players agreed that IM Innes was their equal -- if not
their vast superior -- but for his one big weakness:
alchohol. It was rare indeed to see him without a
flask of Irish whiskey in hand, even as he played
his most dangerous opponents. This also explained
his penchant for bizarre openings, such as the
Queen Bishop's pawn defense against P-K4, for
instance (what lunacy!), and fumbling around with
his Knight's pawns instead of standing his ground
in the center. Too much whiskey had fried his brain.
Yes, the poor fellow continually muttered to himself
that he cared nothing for money and would not play
a stakes game, yet he was dressed in rags and
always appeared to be half-starved. Yet others
could hardly keep themselves from betting on him,
even against the top players of the day, and this
ultimately drove him away; well, that and the fact
that he heard there was an unlimited supply of
corn whiskey in the American colony... .


-- help bot