On Nov 21, 10:01 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Go to another cornfield under another assumed to, while not admitting to his
own name, could honestly write about dishonest people who can own their
opinions?

Ethanol, my boy! You missed your chance to get in on
the ground floor (buy MON - Monsanto), and now you can
only cry about it. (Remarkably similar to It's a Wonderful
Life, with plastics... .)


Ad hominem is LP's hobby, so
to speak; rhetoric and lies, his religion. Terms like
"ratpackers" can easily be replaced if other terms come
to hand, or on a whim.

Generally, then, 'ratpackers' from corn-fed's perspective can be anyone
better than himself at anything

What, lying? I was not aware I was in any competition
in that field. Why wasn't I informed in advance? -- I might
have prepared something... .


but especially those who do not agree. They
are all dishonest conspiracy freeks, and fit for belittlement!

Message from EW: "It's "freaks", you imbecile. Even
clowns like Ray Keene spell better than this poor Innes
creature." -- end message --



What is the topic of this thread?

Rats. It's about how they pack together -- although I
must say I don't really see the connection with chess.


-- help bot

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

Hmmm, a group composed of Louis Blair, Neil Brennen, Tim Hanke, Phil
Innes, Jonathan Manley (editor of Kingpin), Larry Tapper, Edward
Winter, and myself? Sounds wildly improbable at best. For what
conceivable purpose could it have been organized, and by whom?

Well, you sent it. Why ask why?

No, Phil,

No Taylor. I asked /him/ why you sent it, and why he can't find it? And why
he had no memory of it - but since nothing is as important to you than your
public face, you do not challenge me to present it, just continue the bluff,
sort of, that you do 'not recall'

But this is psychological nonsense! If you do not remember you are not
nearly angry enough to deny it! You are left with 'do not recall'.

I recall sending no such e-mail.

What are you doing? Conducting the Olie North Defence?

And so far two of the
alleged recipients (Tapper, Brennen) have said they never received any
such.

They would be implicit as conspitators, no? But again, these people have no
recall either - neither deny a thing! What is your stake if I post it,
refreshing your memory? This is what happened last time I returned 2 of your
e-mails .... silence zzzzz until you decide to re-defend the circumstance
yet again, and at the cost of rubbishing others, always!!

So far, you're outnumbered 3-to-1.

Ah! Your standard is unfurled! the conspirators do not admit it, or
actually, recall it, and that is that?

Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me. OK?
Please say, or say nothing more!

I say its from you via server records, which are provable, and I don't care
if you own them or not - since I have not seen such a public liar in an age!

I'm sure if Louis Blair
weighs in, it will be 4-to-1. Perhaps I shall contact Manley and
Winter, in which case it will be 6-to-1, should they even consider
this nonsense something worth their time. Or ask them yourself. If
you know how to contact Tim Hanke, feel free to ask him too.

When I asked if its okay to publish this material, you never
replied with a straight yes or no, but vagued-out, as usual.

Well, Phil, there's a fundamental problem the I have no right to
give permission to publish something that is not mine.
Since this alleged e-mail seems to have been written by one of your
imaginary playmates, perhaps the guy to whom you said "I'm not your
boy!", I suggest you ask him for permission.

I should be the genius of an age to falsify your writing in so many
messages - you grant me this? That is, if these things are false.

I would have had to emulate your wooden prose to such an extent that no one
else here could agree?

And how was your alleged expulsion accomplished, Phil? Was there a
vote?

You cut that out of the message - nincompoop!

Ah yes, as usual with our Phil, the Secrets of the Universe are
contained in what everyone snips from his posts. So sad.

So you do not deny it - but you have to rubbish someone for your own
observed public deceit?

Ker-ist! And this is just your //public// face !!

If I said nothing else, this standard is enough.

Phil Innes

Phil, you are not well. Get help. You need it.

On Nov 21, 5:25 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...

On Nov 21, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

Hmmm, a group composed of Louis Blair, Neil Brennen, Tim Hanke, Phil
Innes, Jonathan Manley (editor of Kingpin), Larry Tapper, Edward
Winter, and myself? Sounds wildly improbable at best. For what
conceivable purpose could it have been organized, and by whom?

Well, you sent it. Why ask why?

No, Phil,

No Taylor. I asked /him/ why you sent it, and why he can't find it? And why
he had no memory of it - but since nothing is as important to you than your
public face, you do not challenge me to present it, just continue the bluff,
sort of, that you do 'not recall'

But this is psychological nonsense! If you do not remember you are not
nearly angry enough to deny it! You are left with 'do not recall'.

I recall sending no such e-mail.

What are you doing? Conducting the Olie North Defence?

And so far two of the
alleged recipients (Tapper, Brennen) have said they never received any
such.

They would be implicit as conspitators, no? But again, these people have no
recall either - neither deny a thing! What is your stake if I post it,
refreshing your memory? This is what happened last time I returned 2 of your
e-mails .... silence zzzzz until you decide to re-defend the circumstance
yet again, and at the cost of rubbishing others, always!!

So far, you're outnumbered 3-to-1.

Ah! Your standard is unfurled! the conspirators do not admit it, or
actually, recall it, and that is that?

Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me. OK?
Please say, or say nothing more!

I say its from you via server records, which are provable, and I don't care
if you own them or not - since I have not seen such a public liar in an age!

I'm sure if Louis Blair

weighs in, it will be 4-to-1. Perhaps I shall contact Manley and
Winter, in which case it will be 6-to-1, should they even consider
this nonsense something worth their time. Or ask them yourself. If
you know how to contact Tim Hanke, feel free to ask him too.

When I asked if its okay to publish this material, you never
replied with a straight yes or no, but vagued-out, as usual.

Well, Phil, there's a fundamental problem the I have no right to
give permission to publish something that is not mine.
Since this alleged e-mail seems to have been written by one of your
imaginary playmates, perhaps the guy to whom you said "I'm not your
boy!", I suggest you ask him for permission.

I should be the genius of an age to falsify your writing in so many
messages - you grant me this? That is, if these things are false.

I would have had to emulate your wooden prose to such an extent that no one
else here could agree?

And how was your alleged expulsion accomplished, Phil? Was there a
vote?

You cut that out of the message - nincompoop!

Ah yes, as usual with our Phil, the Secrets of the Universe are
contained in what everyone snips from his posts. So sad.

So you do not deny it - but you have to rubbish someone for your own
observed public deceit?

Ker-ist! And this is just your //public// face !!

If I said nothing else, this standard is enough.

Phil Innes

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...

Phil, you are not well. Get help. You need it.

Taylor, you resort to the cheapest repost on usenet, and actually, you deny
nothing I write, nothing!

No one does! instead they 'do not recall'.

pfft!

After the Thanksgiving break, let me therefore, represent you with all the
issues you ignore as your own effort - while you contine to rubbish other
people.

You have no courage to even say 'publish it', right? That is what is at
stake below. If I lie then sue me! But if you lie, then shall I sue thee?

You continue to pretend on these issues as is you could get away with it.
And your private messaging is here become a big problem compared with what
you say in public.

You lack the nous to ken that you should have take any of 10 offers to step
away from this issue, otherwise risk exposure.

Why indeed should I watch you continually do others brown, and have to
remain complicit to your own request for silence? As if that condition
survives any test of what is honorable?

I say you wrote to the persons mentioned heretofore whether you care to
remember or no. I do not even say the content, yet you are terrified for
some reason that I should say what it was. This is exceptionally peculair
behavior

Phil Innes




On Nov 21, 5:25 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...

On Nov 21, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

Hmmm, a group composed of Louis Blair, Neil Brennen, Tim Hanke,
Phil
Innes, Jonathan Manley (editor of Kingpin), Larry Tapper, Edward
Winter, and myself? Sounds wildly improbable at best. For what
conceivable purpose could it have been organized, and by whom?

Well, you sent it. Why ask why?

No, Phil,

No Taylor. I asked /him/ why you sent it, and why he can't find it? And
why
he had no memory of it - but since nothing is as important to you than
your
public face, you do not challenge me to present it, just continue the
bluff,
sort of, that you do 'not recall'

But this is psychological nonsense! If you do not remember you are not
nearly angry enough to deny it! You are left with 'do not recall'.

I recall sending no such e-mail.

What are you doing? Conducting the Olie North Defence?

And so far two of the
alleged recipients (Tapper, Brennen) have said they never received any
such.

They would be implicit as conspitators, no? But again, these people have
no
recall either - neither deny a thing! What is your stake if I post it,
refreshing your memory? This is what happened last time I returned 2 of
your
e-mails .... silence zzzzz until you decide to re-defend the
circumstance
yet again, and at the cost of rubbishing others, always!!

So far, you're outnumbered 3-to-1.

Ah! Your standard is unfurled! the conspirators do not admit it, or
actually, recall it, and that is that?

Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me. OK?
Please say, or say nothing more!

I say its from you via server records, which are provable, and I don't
care
if you own them or not - since I have not seen such a public liar in an
age!

I'm sure if Louis Blair

weighs in, it will be 4-to-1. Perhaps I shall contact Manley and
Winter, in which case it will be 6-to-1, should they even consider
this nonsense something worth their time. Or ask them yourself. If
you know how to contact Tim Hanke, feel free to ask him too.

When I asked if its okay to publish this material, you never
replied with a straight yes or no, but vagued-out, as usual.

Well, Phil, there's a fundamental problem the I have no right to
give permission to publish something that is not mine.
Since this alleged e-mail seems to have been written by one of your
imaginary playmates, perhaps the guy to whom you said "I'm not your
boy!", I suggest you ask him for permission.

I should be the genius of an age to falsify your writing in so many
messages - you grant me this? That is, if these things are false.

I would have had to emulate your wooden prose to such an extent that no
one
else here could agree?

And how was your alleged expulsion accomplished, Phil? Was there a
vote?

You cut that out of the message - nincompoop!

Ah yes, as usual with our Phil, the Secrets of the Universe are
contained in what everyone snips from his posts. So sad.

So you do not deny it - but you have to rubbish someone for your own
observed public deceit?

Ker-ist! And this is just your //public// face !!

If I said nothing else, this standard is enough.

Phil Innes

On Nov 21, 5:47 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

I say you wrote to the persons mentioned heretofore whether you care to
remember or no.

I say you are out of your mind, Phil.

I do not even say the content, yet you are terrified for
some reason that I should say what it was.

No, Phil, I don't give a rat's ass what the content was. As for
being "terrified" of you, well, I've seen scarier chihuahuas.

This is exceptionally peculair
behavior

You are indeed most peculiar.

GET THERAPY

Phil, you are not well. Get help. You need it. -- Kingston to Innes

Phil Innes makes a good point. Taylor Kingston
will refuse to answer inconvenient questions, and it has
become his trademark to advise those with whom he
disagrees to get therapy.

Or, as in the case of Richard Laurie, they
have no memory; or, as appears to be his tacit line
right now, Laurie wrote him a private note that
Laurie never dreamedwould ever see the light of day
and then liked about what Kingston wrote.

Phil: I have no doubt Kingston is hiding his
"confidential" stuff again. He's a sneak who
does things behind closed doors and then
denies doing them..

As for the mental heatlh bit, Kingston writes
postings under other names IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF
during hese debates. He invents higher chess ratings
for himself. What a guy!

BUT: unlike Kingston, I don't adopt the ploy that
he ought to seek therapy. He ought instead to consult
his own conscience. He ought to be happier about what
he is rather than seeking what he can never be.

Consult his what? He may not have a conscience,
but his alter ago who posts under other names IN PRAISE
OF HIMSELF -- and does so repeatedly, dozens of times --
avers that he has "standards."

Well, Phil, I think he does. And what standards
they happen to be.

Larry Tapper? Don't worry about him. He can be
bought off. Just invite him up for a break from
pickup truck country in Deliverance-land. Feed him
some flapjacks and Vermont maple syrup, and you will
find him amenable to switching sides.

The issue becomes: do you want the Tapperman
camping in your front yard? Rapatappatappa -- and all
that. He can be insistent about perks, so beware.

I 'm in Singapore at the moment and this note may
be all I have time to submit today.

Yours, Larry Parr





Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...

Phil, you are not well. Get help. You need it.

Taylor, you resort to the cheapest repost on usenet, and actually, you deny
nothing I write, nothing!

No one does! instead they 'do not recall'.

pfft!

After the Thanksgiving break, let me therefore, represent you with all the
issues you ignore as your own effort - while you contine to rubbish other
people.

You have no courage to even say 'publish it', right? That is what is at
stake below. If I lie then sue me! But if you lie, then shall I sue thee?

You continue to pretend on these issues as is you could get away with it.
And your private messaging is here become a big problem compared with what
you say in public.

You lack the nous to ken that you should have take any of 10 offers to step
away from this issue, otherwise risk exposure.

Why indeed should I watch you continually do others brown, and have to
remain complicit to your own request for silence? As if that condition
survives any test of what is honorable?

I say you wrote to the persons mentioned heretofore whether you care to
remember or no. I do not even say the content, yet you are terrified for
some reason that I should say what it was. This is exceptionally peculair
behavior

Phil Innes




On Nov 21, 5:25 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...

On Nov 21, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

Hmmm, a group composed of Louis Blair, Neil Brennen, Tim Hanke,
Phil
Innes, Jonathan Manley (editor of Kingpin), Larry Tapper, Edward
Winter, and myself? Sounds wildly improbable at best. For what
conceivable purpose could it have been organized, and by whom?

Well, you sent it. Why ask why?

No, Phil,

No Taylor. I asked /him/ why you sent it, and why he can't find it? And
why
he had no memory of it - but since nothing is as important to you than
your
public face, you do not challenge me to present it, just continue the
bluff,
sort of, that you do 'not recall'

But this is psychological nonsense! If you do not remember you are not
nearly angry enough to deny it! You are left with 'do not recall'.

I recall sending no such e-mail.

What are you doing? Conducting the Olie North Defence?

And so far two of the
alleged recipients (Tapper, Brennen) have said they never received any
such.

They would be implicit as conspitators, no? But again, these people have
no
recall either - neither deny a thing! What is your stake if I post it,
refreshing your memory? This is what happened last time I returned 2 of
your
e-mails .... silence zzzzz until you decide to re-defend the
circumstance
yet again, and at the cost of rubbishing others, always!!

So far, you're outnumbered 3-to-1.

Ah! Your standard is unfurled! the conspirators do not admit it, or
actually, recall it, and that is that?

Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me. OK?
Please say, or say nothing more!

I say its from you via server records, which are provable, and I don't
care
if you own them or not - since I have not seen such a public liar in an
age!

I'm sure if Louis Blair

weighs in, it will be 4-to-1. Perhaps I shall contact Manley and
Winter, in which case it will be 6-to-1, should they even consider
this nonsense something worth their time. Or ask them yourself. If
you know how to contact Tim Hanke, feel free to ask him too.

When I asked if its okay to publish this material, you never
replied with a straight yes or no, but vagued-out, as usual.

Well, Phil, there's a fundamental problem the I have no right to
give permission to publish something that is not mine.
Since this alleged e-mail seems to have been written by one of your
imaginary playmates, perhaps the guy to whom you said "I'm not your
boy!", I suggest you ask him for permission.

I should be the genius of an age to falsify your writing in so many
messages - you grant me this? That is, if these things are false.

I would have had to emulate your wooden prose to such an extent that no
one
else here could agree?

And how was your alleged expulsion accomplished, Phil? Was there a
vote?

You cut that out of the message - nincompoop!

Ah yes, as usual with our Phil, the Secrets of the Universe are
contained in what everyone snips from his posts. So sad.

So you do not deny it - but you have to rubbish someone for your own
observed public deceit?

Ker-ist! And this is just your //public// face !!

If I said nothing else, this standard is enough.

Phil Innes

On Nov 21, 5:29 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Phil, you are not well. Get help. You need it.

That advice makes the titanic assumption that PI in
fact *can* be helped. What are the odds?


-- help bot

Larry Parr wrote (Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:27:34 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 ... For the Rev. Walker to know, my deal with Louie was
7 that we would trade questions. He would answer one of
7 mine, I would answer one of his. ...
7 ...

_
There has never been any agreement between Larry Parr
and me on such a deal.

help bot wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:01 am, "Chess One" wrote:

What is the topic of this thread?

Rats. It's about how they pack together -- although I
must say I don't really see the connection with chess.


Me neither, but I am still trying to figure it out. I found an
interesting anonymous quotation. Phil, did you write the following?

"Since I still am hiding in the bunker can anybody explain who all these
people are...other than you all...see I am like a Proust novel...in this
case Le Prisoner, except I wont know when I am actually biting into the
mint. That should all bring you to a screeching halt...well except
Collins who is looking for the appropriate quote...Kierkegaard,
Wittgenstein, Babe Winklemann. First of all Marcel Proust was nothing
but a Romain Rolland wannabe...his writing style was a 19th century
version of Chicken Soup for the Soul, but written with three and a half
million words. Secondly, Wittgenstein, while an accomplished
philosopher, was certainly no Soren Kierkegaard. It is easy to lump
Wittgenstein into the philosophical "rat pack" (if you will allow me the
analogy), where Kierkegaard (Martin), Nietzsche (Sinatra), Wittgenstein
(Sammy), Adorno (Bishop), and Derrida (Lawford) act as gadflies to
create a counterculture of heretical philosophy where they could only
say what they meant by abandoning the conventional wisdom of the day and
inventing a whole new irreverent form of writing through the use of
humor, satire, and parody (all generally regarded as deconstructive
techniques) in order to make the accepted forms of wisdom and value
untenable. Kierkegaard had (in my opinion) a far more profound impact on
modern day (not to be confused with post modernism) philosophy than did
messrs. Wittgenstein & Winkelman (although The Babe wins hands down in
the shore lunch department). As proof of this postulate (redundant), I
draw to your attention the fact that Wittgenstein was reduced to a mere
caricature of himself (which some may argue was the ultimate homage, but
I digress) where he appears as a fictional character in numerous
writings following his death. His significance is inflated by the
mystical adventures of the fictional character Wittgenstein and his
encounters with evil foe the likes of Mothra and The Wolfman. In
closing, I will leave you with the words of our good friend Sinatra
(well...our Sinatra character in our humor-laden rhetorical hypothetical
theoretical satirical paradoxical pack of rats)...It is more convenient
to follow one's conscience than one's intelligence, for at every
failure, conscience finds an excuse and an encouragement in itself. That
is why there are so many conscientious and so few intelligent people."

-- Anonymous

On Nov 21, 12:06 pm, Larry Tapper wrote:
Taylor Kingston writes:
Perhaps Dr. Blair or Larry Tapper would care to weigh in? Do either
recall receiving such an e-mail? If so, what were its contents?

TK,

This is truly strange even by Phil's standards.

I have never received an e-mail remotely like the one Phil Innes
describes; and I certainly have never been on any list that involved
regular correspondence with some cabal of Winterites. As I recall, I
have exchanged something like two or three private e-mails with you
over the last 10 years, maybe four or five with Neil Brennen (about
matters unrelated to Winter), none with Dr. Blair, and none with
Winter himself. Not that I would mind corresponding more regularly
with any of you --- the occasion just hasn't arisen.

What is this, some sort of literary fantasy? I can't quite figure out
what this is supposed to be about. The header "Dear Messrs...."
suggests direct quotation but I know that I never received anything
like this.

Larry T.


As I wrote the last time Innes dredged this up from his swimming pool
- most folks would call it a septic system - I don't recall getting
such an email.