The Historian wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:32 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
. ..
I must say, Mr. Innes, that if this incident is typical of your behavior
in the past, I begin to understand how you acquired the unsavory
reputation that I frequently see referenced in this news group.
--
Seek and you shall find!
insults deleted

I see. It is not too late to reform your ways...
--

I agree, Reverend Walker. There is hope for Innes. I should know about
reformations, as I've lost 140 pounds over 18 months, solely through
lifestyle changes - AKA eating better and less, and exercising.

Dear Mr. History,
Congratulations on your fine achievement! Now if poor Innes were to
take inspiration from you, I'd bet a great man such as he could lose 280
pounds and we'd all be better off for the less of him... :^)
--


Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:32:26 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:

Chess One wrote:

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
. ..

I must say, Mr. Innes, that if this incident is typical of your behavior
in the past, I begin to understand how you acquired the unsavory
reputation that I frequently see referenced in this news group.


Seek and you shall find!

insults deleted

I see. It is not too late to reform your ways...

Good point, Rev.

If only Phil would apologize to the group, admit he's substituted
bombast for reasoned discourse, promise to conduct rationally these
discussions in the future, eschew exhibitionist use of foreign
phrases, and, last but not least, commit to a spell-checker, we'd
welcome him back into the communion of chess fans.

Redemption is possible. We should remember that.

On Nov 16, 11:23 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:32:26 -0800, "J.D. Walker"

wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
m...
I must say, Mr. Innes, that if this incident is typical of your behavior
in the past, I begin to understand how you acquired the unsavory
reputation that I frequently see referenced in this news group.
Seek and you shall find!
insults deleted
I see. It is not too late to reform your ways...

Good point, Rev.

If only Phil would apologize to the group, admit he's substituted
bombast for reasoned discourse, promise to conduct rationally these
discussions in the future, eschew exhibitionist use of foreign
phrases,

Or at least get them right.

and, last but not least, commit to a spell-checker, we'd
welcome him back into the communion of chess fans.

Redemption is possible. We should remember that.

This is a chess newsgroup Murray - if the dirty vicar here wants to snip
references and admonitions to him to discuss chess, and insist that others
are terrible, he would be just like any other flash newbie, and those who
never got past the very self-satisfied clever level... but then he won't be
like you, and Brennan, will he, since that's all you do - and as you know,
there is safety in numbers. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
You'd better protest more, otherwise you'll lose him if he dared actually
talk chess. Do /you/ play, by the way? Do you like it?

You see, admonishing others to do things you don't do yourself is
hypocritical, whether you wear a dog-collar or a ten-gallon hat.

Phil Innes

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:32:26 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:

Chess One wrote:

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
. ..

I must say, Mr. Innes, that if this incident is typical of your
behavior
in the past, I begin to understand how you acquired the unsavory
reputation that I frequently see referenced in this news group.


Seek and you shall find!

insults deleted

I see. It is not too late to reform your ways...

Good point, Rev.

If only Phil would apologize to the group, admit he's substituted
bombast for reasoned discourse, promise to conduct rationally these
discussions in the future, eschew exhibitionist use of foreign
phrases, and, last but not least, commit to a spell-checker, we'd
welcome him back into the communion of chess fans.

Redemption is possible. We should remember that.

Chess One wrote:
This is a chess newsgroup Murray - if the dirty vicar here wants to snip
references and admonitions to him to discuss chess, and insist that others
are terrible, he would be just like any other flash newbie, and those who
never got past the very self-satisfied clever level... but then he won't be
like you, and Brennan, will he, since that's all you do - and as you know,
there is safety in numbers. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
You'd better protest more, otherwise you'll lose him if he dared actually
talk chess. Do /you/ play, by the way? Do you like it?

You see, admonishing others to do things you don't do yourself is
hypocritical, whether you wear a dog-collar or a ten-gallon hat.

Phil Innes

If this is a "chess newsgroup", why does your posting contain zero chess
content?

Newsgroups edited to remove "politics" - just as there is no chess
content, there is no political content either. It barely qualifies as
"misc".

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:52:54 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Do /you/ play, by the way? Do you like it?

"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." How do you like it?

But a fair question. Here's a game I played a few minutes ago on
Playchess (I'm Jerry Attrich, get it?), just before reading your
incisive reply:

[Event "Rated game, 5m + 0s"]
[Site "Main Playing Hall"]
[Date "2007.11.16"]
[White "Arraza"]
[Black "Jerry Attrich"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B00"]
[WhiteElo "1985"]
[BlackElo "1958"]

1. d4 Nc6 2. e4 e5 3. d5 Nce7 4. Bd3 Ng6 5. Ne2 Bc5 6. O-O Nf6 7. Nd2
d6 8. Nc4 Ng4 9. h3 h5 10. hxg4 hxg4 11. g3 Nh4 12. Re1 Nf3+ 13. Kf1
Rh1+ 14. Ng1 Rxg1+ 15. Ke2 Rxe1+ 0-1

You see, admonishing others to do things you don't do yourself is
hypocritical, whether you wear a dog-collar or a ten-gallon hat.

Let's keep your sexual proclivities out of this, Phil.

On Nov 16, 8:23 am, The Historian wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:35 pm, help bot wrote:

I find it interesting that the, um, "standards" of the Evans
ratpack do not exclude posting personal information on
the internet, such as for instance, the home address of
one of the annoying critics of Larry Evans.

Innes harassed Frank Niro over far less.


Harassment is the nearly-an-IM's job, apparently.
He cannot think for himself, so he has been assigned
work in harrying those who bother to critique his
master's rhetoric. The pay is low, but it keeps him
busy and out of any real trouble.


-- help bot

On Nov 16, 8:33 am, The Historian wrote:

I disagree. Larry Parr was, in his prime, a better chess player than I
ever was.

Time travel seems to fall outside the scope of my
comments. I expect, judging from the evident
mental difficulties he experiences here, Mr. Parr
is /far/ past his prime.


He may still be a better chess player.

Theoretically, you might be correct. But who can
say when a man does not actually play chess, but
only talks about chess /as though he were/ an
actual player?


But Innes is pretty much a fish.

That was before he bought Rybka. Now he ranks
among the best in the world -- which is why you
must play him in person, not remotely, as he has
not-so-cleverly attempted to arrange in the past.


Also, I wouldn't consider Parr as lacking "real accomplishments." I
own a couple of his books.

Do you consider putting Larry Evans' rancid anti-
FIDE, anti-everything opinions in order to be a
real accomplishment in chess? From what I've
seen here, LP appears incapable of thinking for
himself; a mere repeater-antenna for the ideas of
Larry Evans, which is not much of an achievement,
IMO. He can spell better than his two associates,
LE and IM Innes, but that's no big deal.


-- help bot

On Nov 16, 9:19 am, The Historian wrote:

I see that Mr. Innes has chosen to compound his bad behavior with
misrepresentations of my posts in another thread. I have dealt with
that in the proper place.

Good. Then /finally/, Mr. Innes will be receiving the
professional help he so desperately needs.



I must say, Mr. Innes, that if this incident is typical of your
behavior in the past, I begin to understand how you acquired the
unsavory reputation that I frequently see referenced in this news group.

Not just in this newsgroup. He's considered a chucklehead in the
Shakespeare group as well.

I have posted several times that I agreed with IM
Innes regarding his point about the impossibility
of determining what is happening on the board
where the actual position cannot be made out, as
in a famous painting discussed on that newsgroup

But since then I have stumbled across something
which gives me pause; it appears that a few
obsessive-compulsives (possibly chess players) have
made a study of that painting, carefully comparing
the style of chess pieces and other details such
that they believe they can make out which piece
is which, and apart from the single man held in the
air, what the exact position in question was.

Now this is not an exact science, since it will be
noted that the position as claimed is not legal, or
rather it cannot be obtained in normal play by any
legal sequence of moves, but that detail aside, it
would appear that the nearly-an-IM 2450 Innes
was wrong: these nutters /can/ distinguish the
King from the Queen, the Rooks from the Knights,
and so forth. What they cannot do is forensically
determine the exact square the man-in-the-air
came from or is going to, so that much is left to
speculation.

But the claim that it is impossible to have any
mate-in-X appears to have been wrongheaded.
So both IM Innes and I were apparently mistaken,
in view of this new (to me) evidence. That would
make Neil Brennen correct, after all.


-- help bot


P.S.: Even so, given the position on the board,
I would have beaten either of those patzers in a
set match.

On Nov 16, 9:54 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Our Larry is fond of finding these special "implications."


I find that I am still in the dark as to the exact "implications"
of a quote posted here by Mr. Parr, perhaps a thousand times
or more.

It had to do with Mr. Campomanes and a press conference in
which Larry Parr's watch held that his favorite show, TASS News
Today, was /already in progress/ and annoucing that the FIDE
honcho was going to stop the match, annul GM Karpov's lead,
and declare the result a tie.

Since that time, not one person other than Larry Evans-Parr
has held that, by their watch, the TASS report preceded the
actual speech *AND* contained the details such as the FIDE
honcho's "undecided" solution of nixing GM Karpov's edge
and declaring the match drawn.

Now, as I understand it, if, for example, the evil President of
FIDE were undecided as to /any/ of the details, his comment
would be truthful in that he would not have "known" exactly
what he was going to "do" next. But in the strange world of
Larry Evans-Parr, it is "proof" of a lie. In this bizarre realm,
the (unsupported as far as I have seen) idea of TASS going on
the air to announce the match being stopped, automatically
provides verification of a Campomanes' "lie", on account of
that being the /desired and hoped-for/ result.

It makes no difference if GM Karpov was upset; it makes no
difference if Mr. Campomanes felt obliged to explain himself
to GM Karpov for having vaporized his hard-earned lead; those
are merely annoying facts, and as such can be dismissed as
irrelevancies since they do not support to preconceived
conclusion. Only those "facts" which do support the desired
result are to be considered or addressed, and any fact which
for whatever reason contradicts the "good story" must be
thrown out. This is the credo of Larry Evans and his ratpack:
never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

And we have to admit, it does make for a good story.



-- help bot