"The Historian" wrote in message
...


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.

But what will Brennan do if he is confronted with a 'recall'? Will he change
his opinion? I don;t thin so! And certainly he will be, as will Tapper.

Then they will challenge the truth of the posting, as if genius Innes could
sufficently emulate Kinston's wooden prose.

I admit I could maybe do it better than anyone else here, but for 20 such
messages? )

We wait for Kingston's own admission that what he wrote was indeed his, but
also what depends on it - since his entire campaign would seem to be bust if
he did actually conduct it.

I have no psychological need to present his material - but since it is
become yet again a public matter - let him speak pubically to it: to wit,
shall I /establish/ his dual presentation, public and private, and who he
conducted it with?

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
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?

I only write under my own name, which I usally, invariably, sign with my
name or intitials, and have never, at any time whatsoever written under
another name, nor pseudonymously, nor as any anon.

So tell me, why do you ask? You are among serpents here who would influence
you. At least with me you know I already called you for a certain
suppossitonal interest in pawns/porn issues

That is not the stance of anyone who /needs/ curry favor, no? It is to
challenge you, and I still find you shy.

"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.

What a passion! I am surprised that the writer did not reference the more
obvious Joyce to his cause, who, after all, attempted to subvert an entire
lit crit tradition, which overthought their responses, and he did so by the
extraoridinary means of creating his own language of symbols to run around
the pat answer, the supercilious response, the 'learned' [vicariously] sense
of anything ...

[it is only, btw, a measure of whoever wrote this piece, not to notice
Joyce, rather than a net-critique familiar to those of us who must needs
attest original answers [!] ]

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."

Not any Jesuitical argument there! But 'our Sinatra' is deposed to represent
consciense over 'intelligence' [which can only mean of intelligence in this
context, a smarmy cleverness, and more particularly, a mob-oily version
thereof] to thus depose of the issue and permit the certainly clever writer
his point.

Now sir, how come you write to me on such sudden and spurious conditions? I
am not native of such a tribe to admit this curious question without
response. It is not of poetry you write, yet here below is ancient and
translated poesy to answer, but some matter of who asks whom and in what
spirit they engage.

Will you not remember your vast hardiness
O Souls

I had no ulterior motives. I encountered that piece of writing. It
reminded me of you. I thought that if you had written it, that it might
help explain why the term 'ratpack' was so frequently encountered here.
And that you might have more insights to offer.

You have explained your policy on anonymous writing. That is fine.
Then you proceeded to discuss the piece of writing. I found your
responses very interesting.

As for any challenges, I am not sure what you mean. Nevertheless, my
counselor, Sir Tryptophan, has advised me to take a nap rather than to
frolic in verbal confrontations.
--

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

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 5:25 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me. OK?

It must be some leisure, since you've been threatening Taylor Kingston
with this disclosure for two years now, at least.

Threaten? Did you not decline to offer your own address to someone recently
'threatening you for your own efforts? Yet you did say you'd shut up about
it, eh?

If Kingston wants to hide under your skirts [laugh] let him!

He should be threatened by his negative aspersions. The last outing on his
representation of Winter's theft of copyright was not even backed up by his
[previous] publisher.

And you - you might consider losing as much intellectual fatuousity, as you
have lost physical fat - which is what, 50%? Upon any intellectual basis of
writing, that is still a very losing statistic. Who do you think you are
kidding?

Phil Innes

On Nov 23, 5:33 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

...

On Nov 21, 5:25 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me. OK?

It must be some leisure, since you've been threatening Taylor Kingston
with this disclosure for two years now, at least.

Threaten? Did you not decline to offer your own address to someone recently
'threatening you for your own efforts? Yet you did say you'd shut up about
it, eh?

If Kingston wants to hide under your skirts [laugh] let him!

If I translate the above drivel correctly, you think Taylor Kingston
is afraid you are going to send something to .... oh I give up. Your
'logic' defies explanation.

He should be threatened by his negative aspersions. The last outing on his
representation of Winter's theft of copyright was not even backed up by his
[previous] publisher.

Mr. Kingston had a previous publisher? And how does that relate to
whatever lies about Edward Winter you are shopping around this week?

And you - you might consider losing as much intellectual fatuousity, as you
have lost physical fat - which is what, 50%? Upon any intellectual basis of
writing, that is still a very losing statistic. Who do you think you are
kidding?

My weight loss really bothers you, Philsy, doesn't it? It must hurt
not to be able to criticize my physical appearance.

On Nov 23, 5:23 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

...



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.

But what will Brennan do if he is confronted with a 'recall'?

How do you propose to do that? Oh yes, your wonderful "server records"
can tell what I do and do not read. Or is that the Brattleboro FBI
keeping you informed?

Will he change
his opinion? I don;t thin so! And certainly he will be, as will Tapper.

Then they will challenge the truth of the posting, as if genius Innes

- HURL!-

could
sufficently emulate Kinston's wooden prose.

I've never denied there might BE such an email. I suggest you ask
someone who understands English, if any such person willingly
associates with a bedlam such as yourself, to read my quoted comment.
I'm sure you've sent a lot of email that never reached its
destination, or wound up in the spam filter, or was deleted unread.
It's not beyond the range of belief that an occasional email from a
sane person such as Mr. Kingston might go astray.

I admit I could maybe do it better than anyone else here, but for 20 such
messages? )

We wait for Kingston's own admission that what he wrote was indeed his, but
also what depends on it - since his entire campaign would seem to be bust if
he did actually conduct it.

I have no psychological need to present his material -

Because you have no material to present.

but since it is
become yet again a public matter - let him speak pubically to it:

Please, Taylor, don't!

to wit,
shall I /establish/ his dual presentation, public and private, and who he
conducted it with?

Phil Innes

FATUOSITY

If Kingston wants to hide under your skirts [laugh] let him! He should be threatened by his negative aspersions. The last outing on his representation of Winter's theft of copyright was not even backed up by his [previous] publisher. And you - you might consider losing as much intellectual fatuousity, as you have lost physical fat - which is what, 50%? -- Phil Innes to Neil Brennen

My weight loss really bothers you, Philsy, doesn't it? It must hurt
not to be able to criticize my physical appearance. -- Neil Brennen
to Phil Innes

Neil Brennen wonders whether it injures Phil Innes because he can no
longer call him a big, fat slob. I don't think it injures Phil in the
least, but it does injure me.

I never called The Historian a fatbod, though I did call him a
fathead. So why the
injury?

Because one always wishes to have options. Too, when The Historian
used to killfile me every few days, he argued that I was ruining his
breakfast. And what
historic, heroic breakfasts they must have been. Rashers of bacon so
numerous as to wobble the Chicago commodities market when he cut back
some mornings;
pots of coffee so vast as to have their own wave charts; loaves of
bread so abundant as to threaten America's surplus in storage, thus
killing off a few thousand African natives in Burkina Faso who thereby
went without American food aid; eggs in thousands of dozens, prompting
Easter panic-buying by hysterical mothers fearing for their egg hunts;
stacks of flapjacks so stratospheric as to beggar Jack's mean
beanstalk; and, one suspects the real reason for Phil's understandable
disgust with Neil, rivers of maple syrup that drove the price higher
than the Green Mountains.

The point is that this writer ruined it for The Historian -- or so he
himself claimed.

Phil: an interesting angle is to get Tapperman and The Historian in
battle if the latter ever reverts to past eating habits. Tapperman
has always wanted to camp in your front yard in Brattleboro and
partake of healthy New England living -- as opposed to gnawing ightly
on pork knuckles down in his Deliverance country. Perhaps we might
hint that Tapperman could get an invite except that The Historian is
once again threatening food supplies, as in the eponymous work by
Justice William O. Douglas, beyond the high Himalayas.

Yours, Larry






The Historian wrote:
On Nov 23, 5:33 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

...

On Nov 21, 5:25 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me. OK?

It must be some leisure, since you've been threatening Taylor Kingston
with this disclosure for two years now, at least.

Threaten? Did you not decline to offer your own address to someone recently
'threatening you for your own efforts? Yet you did say you'd shut up about
it, eh?

If Kingston wants to hide under your skirts [laugh] let him!

If I translate the above drivel correctly, you think Taylor Kingston
is afraid you are going to send something to .... oh I give up. Your
'logic' defies explanation.

He should be threatened by his negative aspersions. The last outing on his
representation of Winter's theft of copyright was not even backed up by his
[previous] publisher.

Mr. Kingston had a previous publisher? And how does that relate to
whatever lies about Edward Winter you are shopping around this week?

And you - you might consider losing as much intellectual fatuousity, as you
have lost physical fat - which is what, 50%? Upon any intellectual basis of
writing, that is still a very losing statistic. Who do you think you are
kidding?

My weight loss really bothers you, Philsy, doesn't it? It must hurt
not to be able to criticize my physical appearance.

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

Will you not remember your vast hardiness
O Souls

I had no ulterior motives. I encountered that piece of writing. It
reminded me of you. I thought that if you had written it, that it might
help explain why the term 'ratpack' was so frequently encountered here.
And that you might have more insights to offer.

What needs be said of those who write 'in groups' of any kind? They are
evidently people of like mind, so, of independent mind too? Is it
essentially a defensive posture to protect themselves from interacting with
the whole of things, or is it the result of being out there, going through a
few wars, and mutually agreeing on what is still worth any social attempt?

You have explained your policy on anonymous writing. That is fine. Then
you proceeded to discuss the piece of writing. I found your responses
very interesting.

As for any challenges, I am not sure what you mean. Nevertheless, my
counselor, Sir Tryptophan, has advised me to take a nap rather than to
frolic in verbal confrontations.

Ah, food!@

You consulted with that turkey?

We had 2 gravies, one a traditional, and the other a southwestern dark
chocolate and chile! I never had it before, though had read of it in that
good book 'Blue Corn and Chocolate' [Kazin?] which is not only a
native-to-america cook book, but an interesting anthropology on original
foodstuffs here - a minor work on the theme of Food In England [Hartley],
neverthless fascinating reading; many 'typical' american recipies using
native ingredients took a 200 year vacation in europe before coming back
with immigrants. The Spanish kept the potato a secret for 100 years, and a
King of France would not let anyone in his country eat any such 'animal
food'! Some of the best things in it are the 'southern omellete' frittata,
in Spanish and Greek versions. Probably the Spanish one was best received in
the [subsequent] states, for its inclusion of the great american favorites
of potatoes and tomato combinations.

So having had my chile-chocolate sauce, there is the blue-corn fajita to go.
I tried to make 'em but it didn't work out well. Its bad when the hound dog
looks first embarassed at being offered it, then as apologetically as good
manners but determined intent can combine, slinks off leaving it uneaten.

But to end with a turkey story: My ex parents in law were driving around in
Texas pulling one of those small u-haul trailers, and were driving rather
fast so got pulled over and approached by a young officer who asked the
elderly couple if they knew why they had been stopped?

"Are you lost, Sonny?" asked the grandmother who had dissed Einstein in
Princeton, as was old enough to have been a flapper.
"I have some chocolate if you'd like some," said he.

Anyway, after these strange responses the cop asked if he could look in the
back of the u-haul, and on opening it up there was nothing at all inside
except for one turkey which was suspended from the roof, and still swinging
back and forth on a rope.

He drove off without saying another word. After 5 minutes, so did they.

Now, the moral of the story is... ?

Phil Innes


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

On Nov 21, 9:13 pm, " wrote:

Phil Innes makes a good point. Taylor Kingston
will refuse to answer inconvenient questions ...

Larry, you cornered the market on unanswered questions ages ago. A
goodlly chunk of Google's storage is devoted to all the ones I've
asked you over the years, that you have sidestepped, waffled on, or
simply ignored. You've been ignoring these below for several days now,
so I thought it worthwhile drawing them to your attention again.

One of the characteristics of ratpackers is moral cowardice.
They praise themselves under false names (other ratpackers and
semi-ratpackers have adopted false monickers) and they cannot
stand the intellectual heat in the kitchen. They beg off.

Well, Larry, let's see you demonstrate some moral courage then, and
show that you can stand up to the "intellectual heat," by answering
directly these recent questions of mine, which are only a small
sampling of the many I might post he

1. You and Richard Laurie have repeatedly claimed that I have
"maligned GM Evans' ability to analyze," yet you have never produced
anything to support it. Courage and honesty require that you either:

(a) prove your claim -- and I mean prove, not contrive some non-
existent "implication" -- or
(b) admit your lie.

2. You and Laurie have absurdly claimed that the "basis for this
assault appears to have been the book, 'Warriors of the Mind' by Keene
and Divinsky." Please tell us:

(a) Where is any quote from me supporting this absurd claim?
(b) How can a book that says nothing at all about GM Evans, either
directly or indirectly, be the basis for an attack on Evans?

3. Later you revised this claim, saying "Mr. Laurie is almost
certainly correct that Kingston's basis for the attack was Winter's
savage review of 'Warriors of the Mind.'" Please tell us:

(a) Which are you really saying is the basis: the book, or the
review?
(b) How can a review that never mentions GM Evans, either directly
or indirectly, of a book that never mentions GM Evans, either directly
or indirectly, be the basis for an attack on GM EVans?


4. You have set great store by Mr. Laurie's memory, which has been
shown to be seriously flawed. For example, referring to Evans' 1996
article, he wrote "GM Evans ... held forth the view that one or more
smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were explored."

(a) Please supply a quote from GM Evans' 1996 article that supports
Laurie's claim.
(b) Please reconcile Laurie's claim with Evan's 4/1997 statement
that "We doubt such a document will ever surface."

So go ahead, Larry. Here's your chance to prove your moral courage
and intellectual honesty right in front of God and this company. We
have every confidence that you will fail to reply, or if you do, it
will be such a marvel of evasion and doubletalk as to make an eel look
like a hedgehog, and Al Kelly sound like Hemingway.

On Nov 24, 10:12 am, " wrote:
FATUOSITY

If Kingston wants to hide under your skirts [laugh] let him! He should be threatened by his negative aspersions. The last outing on his representation of Winter's theft of copyright was not even backed up by his [previous] publisher. And you - you might consider losing as much intellectual fatuousity, as you have lost physical fat - which is what, 50%? -- Phil Innes to Neil Brennen

My weight loss really bothers you, Philsy, doesn't it? It must hurt
not to be able to criticize my physical appearance. -- Neil Brennen
to Phil Innes

Neil Brennen wonders whether it injures Phil Innes because he can no
longer call him a big, fat slob. I don't think it injures Phil in the
least, but it does injure me.

I never called The Historian a fatbod, though I did call him a
fathead. So why the
injury?

Because one always wishes to have options. Too, when The Historian
used to killfile me every few days, he argued that I was ruining his
breakfast. And what
historic, heroic breakfasts they must have been. Rashers of bacon so
numerous as to wobble the Chicago commodities market when he cut back
some mornings;
pots of coffee so vast as to have their own wave charts; loaves of
bread so abundant as to threaten America's surplus in storage, thus
killing off a few thousand African natives in Burkina Faso who thereby
went without American food aid; eggs in thousands of dozens, prompting
Easter panic-buying by hysterical mothers fearing for their egg hunts;
stacks of flapjacks so stratospheric as to beggar Jack's mean
beanstalk; and, one suspects the real reason for Phil's understandable
disgust with Neil, rivers of maple syrup that drove the price higher
than the Green Mountains.

The point is that this writer ruined it for The Historian -- or so he
himself claimed.

Phil: an interesting angle is to get Tapperman and The Historian in
battle if the latter ever reverts to past eating habits. Tapperman
has always wanted to camp in your front yard in Brattleboro and
partake of healthy New England living -- as opposed to gnawing ightly
on pork knuckles down in his Deliverance country. Perhaps we might
hint that Tapperman could get an invite except that The Historian is
once again threatening food supplies, as in the eponymous work by
Justice William O. Douglas, beyond the high Himalayas.

Yours, Larry

Very amusing, Larry. However, a small correction - I don't drink
coffee, I favor tea. Earl Grey or English Breakfast for black tea, but
I usually drink green teas or herbals.

I disagree with you on the matter of Phil's pain over my weight loss,
for indeed it is pain Mr. Innes shows in his postings. He's referred
to my appearance often enough to prove it has some importance to him.
But enough of this. It's 40 degrees out, the sun is shining, and I
have miles of bike riding to get in before nightfall. (Take that,
Philsy!)

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Nov 23, 5:33 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

...

On Nov 21, 5:25 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me.
OK?

It must be some leisure, since you've been threatening Taylor Kingston
with this disclosure for two years now, at least.

Threaten? Did you not decline to offer your own address to someone
recently
'threatening you for your own efforts? Yet you did say you'd shut up
about
it, eh?

If Kingston wants to hide under your skirts [laugh] let him!

If I translate the above drivel correctly, you think Taylor Kingston
is afraid you are going to send something to .... oh I give up. Your
'logic' defies explanation.

You [laugh] mean you don't understand? You don;t understand what logic is,
or something like that?

Or do you divert because someone offered to prosecute your arse? Right
I know - so let's not be coy about things, a-la-Kingston!

He should be threatened by his negative aspersions. The last outing on
his
representation of Winter's theft of copyright was not even backed up by
his
[previous] publisher.

Mr. Kingston had a previous publisher? And how does that relate to
whatever lies about Edward Winter you are shopping around this week?

Yes he had a previous publisher! And yes, as to his lies, why, why indeed
don't you address the issue - your ex-fat git? Instead of 5 years of
stalking, uttering inane questions, which are only about you, and your level
of perception? If you do not recall you cannot discount! And remember, I
have the e-mail which you and Tapper do not recall.

Is this your request I publish it? What would happen if I did? What
consequence to you and Tapper and Kingston?

How does it /relate/, indeed?!

And you - you might consider losing as much intellectual fatuousity, as
you
have lost physical fat - which is what, 50%? Upon any intellectual basis
of
writing, that is still a very losing statistic. Who do you think you are
kidding?

My weight loss really bothers you, Philsy, doesn't it?

no! I always thought the main reason for your stalking is that I am an
alpine climber, and you don't get any [live] fat-arses up there, and since
it seems someone of your 'condition' could hardly make it on foot to the
bus-stop, I inferred a certain animus. But in your usual terms, you invert
the circumstance

It must hurt
not to be able to criticize my physical appearance.

Really? I rather thought I called you fatuous, as in fat-head - a figure of
speech, doncha know?

Anyway, thank you for casting your usual shadow over proceedings. Nothing
was revealed.

Phil Innes