"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:Egvdk.1202$Ae3.1042@trnddc05...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:_rqdk.1241$bn3.880@trnddc07...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:qI8dk.1169$bn3.1006@trnddc07...

You really do need professional help, Phil.
Brian Lafferty continues not to notice questions put to him about his
own behavior, of what he knew and what he did. He seems puzzled that
anyone should question him!

At least Jerry Spinrad thinks rules of evidence within the law are
'incomprehensible' when I write them - he has never avered that
independent and established authority should adjudicate the issue.

While his own determinations outside the law are A-OK, no matter what
he based them on - such as Brian Lafferty's commentary - and just to
clarify that, I ask Our Brian a few questions...

Our Jerry was so sure about this previously, but is not mentioning it
any more.

Here are once again the questions which Our Brian can't seem to notice,
and it seem to me that all evidential material might come under a bit
more scrutiny, and then even Our Jerry might be impressed:

1) Did Lafferty write his opinion of ex-Sp's husband /after/ a court
decided
there was nothing to it?
Phil, you either have dementia or a severe lack of reading
comprehension. This has been discussed here on rgcp in detail before.
Obviously, all concerned other than Truong, Polgar and Schutzman, knew
of the order before anyone here knew about it.

I am afraid that that is not an answer to the question I asked. I do not
oblige Brian Lafferty to answer me, I merely note that he can answer yes
or no. And he hasn't done so.

2) Did Lafferty ever admit the above circumstance? Which would be to
indicate
that it was entirely unfounded?
As has been discussed here several dimes before, Mr. Schutzman advised
me that the order(s) was vacated on consent of the parties, the giving
of which consent he now regrets. Do you have a copy of any Family Court
order with findings of fact that would indicate that there was no
factual basis for the original orders? Of course you don't. Ask your
friend Susan if she has such an order the next time you have your nose
up her butt crack seeking favor.

I see that that is also no answer to a simple question!

[these matters of Mr. Schutzman's regret to Brian Lafferty, and whatever
their relations together, does not concern me in the least.]

It should concern you to know that the orders were vavated on consent and
not after a hearing with findings by the court.

I believe I clearly indicated that I was not interested in volunteered
commentary, especially since I do not know the relations of the parties
together - but if the effect was consent to vacate the investigation, then
that at least is a substantiated fact.

My question simply asks that since Mr. Lafferty had written about the
charge here in public, has he, before now, ever stated the resolution
that the court decided?

Do a google search and you'll have your answer.

How indirect! I wonder why?

Phil Innes

postcript: as to Mr. Lafferty's final comment below, one he is fond to
repeat, shall we understand that that is also not anything normal to legal
apprehension, and that it too is 'political'?

3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above, that
this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the Judge
does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he is
himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.
Earth to Phil. Your assumptions are not reality. I'll ignore the
remaineder of your verbal stupidity.

Another significant omission! Heuch! It is sometimes important in
collective issues to establish who should decide what about whom by their
candor and character, rather than their politics.

Now, please, Phi. Get professional help.

You have been of more help in these responses than you know, and you are
a professional, no?
Sadly, not the type of professional help that you need.


Phil Innes

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:Egvdk.1202$Ae3.1042@trnddc05...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:_rqdk.1241$bn3.880@trnddc07...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:qI8dk.1169$bn3.1006@trnddc07...

You really do need professional help, Phil.
Brian Lafferty continues not to notice questions put to him about his
own behavior, of what he knew and what he did. He seems puzzled that
anyone should question him!

At least Jerry Spinrad thinks rules of evidence within the law are
'incomprehensible' when I write them - he has never avered that
independent and established authority should adjudicate the issue.

While his own determinations outside the law are A-OK, no matter what
he based them on - such as Brian Lafferty's commentary - and just to
clarify that, I ask Our Brian a few questions...

Our Jerry was so sure about this previously, but is not mentioning it
any more.

Here are once again the questions which Our Brian can't seem to notice,
and it seem to me that all evidential material might come under a bit
more scrutiny, and then even Our Jerry might be impressed:

1) Did Lafferty write his opinion of ex-Sp's husband /after/ a court
decided
there was nothing to it?
Phil, you either have dementia or a severe lack of reading
comprehension. This has been discussed here on rgcp in detail before.
Obviously, all concerned other than Truong, Polgar and Schutzman, knew
of the order before anyone here knew about it.
I am afraid that that is not an answer to the question I asked. I do not
oblige Brian Lafferty to answer me, I merely note that he can answer yes
or no. And he hasn't done so.

2) Did Lafferty ever admit the above circumstance? Which would be to
indicate
that it was entirely unfounded?
As has been discussed here several dimes before, Mr. Schutzman advised
me that the order(s) was vacated on consent of the parties, the giving
of which consent he now regrets. Do you have a copy of any Family Court
order with findings of fact that would indicate that there was no
factual basis for the original orders? Of course you don't. Ask your
friend Susan if she has such an order the next time you have your nose
up her butt crack seeking favor.
I see that that is also no answer to a simple question!

[these matters of Mr. Schutzman's regret to Brian Lafferty, and whatever
their relations together, does not concern me in the least.]
It should concern you to know that the orders were vavated on consent and
not after a hearing with findings by the court.

I believe I clearly indicated that I was not interested in volunteered
commentary, especially since I do not know the relations of the parties
together - but if the effect was consent to vacate the investigation, then
that at least is a substantiated fact.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it's still ignorance, Phil.

My question simply asks that since Mr. Lafferty had written about the
charge here in public, has he, before now, ever stated the resolution
that the court decided?
Do a google search and you'll have your answer.

How indirect! I wonder why?
Because you're a big boy who can spend HIS time doing a search for the
facts he wants.

Phil Innes

postcript: as to Mr. Lafferty's final comment below, one he is fond to
repeat, shall we understand that that is also not anything normal to legal
apprehension, and that it too is 'political'?
Translation, please.


3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above, that
this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the Judge
does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he is
himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.
Earth to Phil. Your assumptions are not reality. I'll ignore the
remaineder of your verbal stupidity.
Another significant omission! Heuch! It is sometimes important in
collective issues to establish who should decide what about whom by their
candor and character, rather than their politics.

Now, please, Phi. Get professional help.
You have been of more help in these responses than you know, and you are
a professional, no?
Sadly, not the type of professional help that you need.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:dP3ek.64$kf4.4@trnddc03...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:Egvdk.1202$Ae3.1042@trnddc05...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:_rqdk.1241$bn3.880@trnddc07...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:qI8dk.1169$bn3.1006@trnddc07...

You really do need professional help, Phil.
Brian Lafferty continues not to notice questions put to him about his
own behavior, of what he knew and what he did. He seems puzzled that
anyone should question him!

At least Jerry Spinrad thinks rules of evidence within the law are
'incomprehensible' when I write them - he has never avered that
independent and established authority should adjudicate the issue.

While his own determinations outside the law are A-OK, no matter what
he based them on - such as Brian Lafferty's commentary - and just to
clarify that, I ask Our Brian a few questions...

Our Jerry was so sure about this previously, but is not mentioning it
any more.

Here are once again the questions which Our Brian can't seem to
notice, and it seem to me that all evidential material might come
under a bit more scrutiny, and then even Our Jerry might be
impressed:

1) Did Lafferty write his opinion of ex-Sp's husband /after/ a court
decided
there was nothing to it?
Phil, you either have dementia or a severe lack of reading
comprehension. This has been discussed here on rgcp in detail before.
Obviously, all concerned other than Truong, Polgar and Schutzman, knew
of the order before anyone here knew about it.
I am afraid that that is not an answer to the question I asked. I do
not oblige Brian Lafferty to answer me, I merely note that he can
answer yes or no. And he hasn't done so.

2) Did Lafferty ever admit the above circumstance? Which would be to
indicate
that it was entirely unfounded?
As has been discussed here several dimes before, Mr. Schutzman advised
me that the order(s) was vacated on consent of the parties, the giving
of which consent he now regrets. Do you have a copy of any Family
Court order with findings of fact that would indicate that there was
no factual basis for the original orders? Of course you don't. Ask
your friend Susan if she has such an order the next time you have your
nose up her butt crack seeking favor.
I see that that is also no answer to a simple question!

[these matters of Mr. Schutzman's regret to Brian Lafferty, and
whatever their relations together, does not concern me in the least.]
It should concern you to know that the orders were vavated on consent
and not after a hearing with findings by the court.

I believe I clearly indicated that I was not interested in volunteered
commentary, especially since I do not know the relations of the parties
together - but if the effect was consent to vacate the investigation,
then that at least is a substantiated fact.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it's still ignorance, Phil.

My question simply asks that since Mr. Lafferty had written about the
charge here in public, has he, before now, ever stated the resolution
that the court decided?
Do a google search and you'll have your answer.

How indirect! I wonder why?
Because you're a big boy who can spend HIS time doing a search for the
facts he wants.

I think we both know what the facts are - I just wondered when you'd stop
posturing about your own behavior and admit them yourself.

But if you don't want to, then shall we agree that you wrote about the
accusations, but not that the issue was vacated?

You say so much Brian, about others, but you are rather shy yourself.

Phil Innes

postcript: as to Mr. Lafferty's final comment below, one he is fond to
repeat, shall we understand that that is also not anything normal to
legal apprehension, and that it too is 'political'?
Translation, please.

Why you write hate-speech? You surely can't pretend not to understand that
too!! Or maybe you can not understand it, since who actually would notice or
care much in your ensemble?

Phil Innes


3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above, that
this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the
Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he is
himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.
Earth to Phil. Your assumptions are not reality. I'll ignore the
remaineder of your verbal stupidity.
Another significant omission! Heuch! It is sometimes important in
collective issues to establish who should decide what about whom by
their candor and character, rather than their politics.

Now, please, Phi. Get professional help.
You have been of more help in these responses than you know, and you
are a professional, no?
Sadly, not the type of professional help that you need.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:dP3ek.64$kf4.4@trnddc03...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:Egvdk.1202$Ae3.1042@trnddc05...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:_rqdk.1241$bn3.880@trnddc07...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:qI8dk.1169$bn3.1006@trnddc07...

You really do need professional help, Phil.
Brian Lafferty continues not to notice questions put to him about his
own behavior, of what he knew and what he did. He seems puzzled that
anyone should question him!

At least Jerry Spinrad thinks rules of evidence within the law are
'incomprehensible' when I write them - he has never avered that
independent and established authority should adjudicate the issue.

While his own determinations outside the law are A-OK, no matter what
he based them on - such as Brian Lafferty's commentary - and just to
clarify that, I ask Our Brian a few questions...

Our Jerry was so sure about this previously, but is not mentioning it
any more.

Here are once again the questions which Our Brian can't seem to
notice, and it seem to me that all evidential material might come
under a bit more scrutiny, and then even Our Jerry might be
impressed:

1) Did Lafferty write his opinion of ex-Sp's husband /after/ a court
decided
there was nothing to it?
Phil, you either have dementia or a severe lack of reading
comprehension. This has been discussed here on rgcp in detail before.
Obviously, all concerned other than Truong, Polgar and Schutzman, knew
of the order before anyone here knew about it.
I am afraid that that is not an answer to the question I asked. I do
not oblige Brian Lafferty to answer me, I merely note that he can
answer yes or no. And he hasn't done so.

2) Did Lafferty ever admit the above circumstance? Which would be to
indicate
that it was entirely unfounded?
As has been discussed here several dimes before, Mr. Schutzman advised
me that the order(s) was vacated on consent of the parties, the giving
of which consent he now regrets. Do you have a copy of any Family
Court order with findings of fact that would indicate that there was
no factual basis for the original orders? Of course you don't. Ask
your friend Susan if she has such an order the next time you have your
nose up her butt crack seeking favor.
I see that that is also no answer to a simple question!

[these matters of Mr. Schutzman's regret to Brian Lafferty, and
whatever their relations together, does not concern me in the least.]
It should concern you to know that the orders were vavated on consent
and not after a hearing with findings by the court.
I believe I clearly indicated that I was not interested in volunteered
commentary, especially since I do not know the relations of the parties
together - but if the effect was consent to vacate the investigation,
then that at least is a substantiated fact.
Ignorance may be bliss, but it's still ignorance, Phil.
My question simply asks that since Mr. Lafferty had written about the
charge here in public, has he, before now, ever stated the resolution
that the court decided?
Do a google search and you'll have your answer.
How indirect! I wonder why?
Because you're a big boy who can spend HIS time doing a search for the
facts he wants.

I think we both know what the facts are - I just wondered when you'd stop
posturing about your own behavior and admit them yourself.

I know the facts, but have no knowledge of what you claim to know.
Given what you have claimed to know in the past, it would be a stretch
to say that you are connected to factual reality.

But if you don't want to, then shall we agree that you wrote about the
accusations, but not that the issue was vacated?

I agree to nothing with you, Phil.

You say so much Brian, about others, but you are rather shy yourself.

If you were a USCF member with access to the USCF issues forum, you'd
see the factual incorrectness of your statement.

Phil Innes

postcript: as to Mr. Lafferty's final comment below, one he is fond to
repeat, shall we understand that that is also not anything normal to
legal apprehension, and that it too is 'political'?
Translation, please.

Why you write hate-speech? You surely can't pretend not to understand that
too!!

I am unaware of having written any hate speech. Please provide examples
or retract your patently stupid assertion.

Or maybe you can not understand it, since who actually would notice or
care much in your ensemble?
Translation, please.


Phil Innes

3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above, that
this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the
Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he is
himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.
Earth to Phil. Your assumptions are not reality. I'll ignore the
remaineder of your verbal stupidity.
Another significant omission! Heuch! It is sometimes important in
collective issues to establish who should decide what about whom by
their candor and character, rather than their politics.

Now, please, Phi. Get professional help.
You have been of more help in these responses than you know, and you
are a professional, no?
Sadly, not the type of professional help that you need.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:0Haek.72$Cw5.21@trnddc01...

I think we both know what the facts are - I just wondered when you'd stop
posturing about your own behavior and admit them yourself.

I know the facts, but have no knowledge of what you claim to know. Given
what you have claimed to know in the past, it would be a stretch to say
that you are connected to factual reality.

Dear Brian Lafferty,

I asked you for a simple chronology of your postings, being what you knew
and when you knew it. Period!

Instead of making any plain answer you decline to do so, then, by some
strange means known only to yourself, you decide that my question [!!!] is
not connected to 'factual reality'.

And yet the question seeks to resolve the factual reality, no?
And only you can say what you knew and when you knew it - these being the
'facts' in question.

But if you don't want to, then shall we agree that you wrote about the
accusations, but not that the issue was vacated?

I agree to nothing with you, Phil.
You say so much Brian, about others, but you are rather shy yourself.

If you were a USCF member with access to the USCF issues forum, you'd see
the factual incorrectness of your statement.

Vague references to what happens elsewhere under different condtions? But my
question is about what is happening here in an unmoderated forum - but, as I
said before, if you don't wish to answer here, that's ok - I merely note
that you do not.

Phil Innes

postcript: as to Mr. Lafferty's final comment below, one he is fond to
repeat, shall we understand that that is also not anything normal to
legal apprehension, and that it too is 'political'?
Translation, please.

Why you write hate-speech? You surely can't pretend not to understand
that too!!

I am unaware of having written any hate speech. Please provide examples
or retract your patently stupid assertion.

Frequently suggesting that others are stupid, need help, and so on, when
they ask questions to establish the facts of an issue from those who have
them, seems to the context here.

If you want to volunteer proclamations about other people, instead of
answering their questions, then that is your choice. Putting the questioner
down, rather than addressing the question is the point!~

These are patently logical assertions resulting from a simple and direct
question. If /you/ do not answer a direct question in a direct way - it is
logical to insult the questioner for having asked it?

Does it publicly insult and demean them?

I thank you for your responses to date. I have established what I wanted to
find out.

Phil Innes

Or maybe you can not understand it, since who actually would notice or
care much in your ensemble?
Translation, please.


Phil Innes

3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above,
that this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the
Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he
is himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.
Earth to Phil. Your assumptions are not reality. I'll ignore the
remaineder of your verbal stupidity.
Another significant omission! Heuch! It is sometimes important in
collective issues to establish who should decide what about whom by
their candor and character, rather than their politics.

Now, please, Phi. Get professional help.
You have been of more help in these responses than you know, and you
are a professional, no?
Sadly, not the type of professional help that you need.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:0Haek.72$Cw5.21@trnddc01...

I think we both know what the facts are - I just wondered when you'd stop
posturing about your own behavior and admit them yourself.
I know the facts, but have no knowledge of what you claim to know. Given
what you have claimed to know in the past, it would be a stretch to say
that you are connected to factual reality.

Dear Brian Lafferty,

I asked you for a simple chronology of your postings, being what you knew
and when you knew it. Period!

Instead of making any plain answer you decline to do so, then, by some
strange means known only to yourself, you decide that my question [!!!] is
not connected to 'factual reality'.

And yet the question seeks to resolve the factual reality, no?
And only you can say what you knew and when you knew it - these being the
'facts' in question.
I do not have such a chronology at my finger tips. You can obtain that
by doing a posting search of your own. I have no need, desire or
obligation to do it for you.


But if you don't want to, then shall we agree that you wrote about the
accusations, but not that the issue was vacated?
I agree to nothing with you, Phil.
You say so much Brian, about others, but you are rather shy yourself.
If you were a USCF member with access to the USCF issues forum, you'd see
the factual incorrectness of your statement.

Vague references to what happens elsewhere under different condtions? But my
question is about what is happening here in an unmoderated forum - but, as I
said before, if you don't wish to answer here, that's ok - I merely note
that you do not.

Poor attempt at sophistry, Phil. You are not a USCF member, and are
thus unaware of much regarding moi.


Phil Innes

postcript: as to Mr. Lafferty's final comment below, one he is fond to
repeat, shall we understand that that is also not anything normal to
legal apprehension, and that it too is 'political'?
Translation, please.
Why you write hate-speech? You surely can't pretend not to understand
that too!!
I am unaware of having written any hate speech. Please provide examples
or retract your patently stupid assertion.

Frequently suggesting that others are stupid, need help, and so on, when
they ask questions to establish the facts of an issue from those who have
them, seems to the context here.

Wrong, Phil. I suggest that you do so research into what hate speech
is considered, and you will see the error of your assertion.

If you want to volunteer proclamations about other people, instead of
answering their questions, then that is your choice. Putting the questioner
down, rather than addressing the question is the point!~

Phil, pointing out the stupidity and/or inanity of your statements is
what free speech is all about. If you can't take the heat, don't post
to Usenet. Stay in your safe little Chessville forum home and/or over
at the Trolgar controlled web sites.


These are patently logical assertions resulting from a simple and direct
question. If /you/ do not answer a direct question in a direct way - it is
logical to insult the questioner for having asked it?

Does it publicly insult and demean them?

I thank you for your responses to date. I have established what I wanted to
find out.

You're quite welcome even if you understand so little of what you have
"found out."

Phil Innes

Or maybe you can not understand it, since who actually would notice or
care much in your ensemble?
Translation, please.

Phil Innes

3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above,
that this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the
Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he
is himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.
Earth to Phil. Your assumptions are not reality. I'll ignore the
remaineder of your verbal stupidity.
Another significant omission! Heuch! It is sometimes important in
collective issues to establish who should decide what about whom by
their candor and character, rather than their politics.

Now, please, Phi. Get professional help.
You have been of more help in these responses than you know, and you
are a professional, no?
Sadly, not the type of professional help that you need.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:_ypek.194$jS4.139@trnddc07...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:0Haek.72$Cw5.21@trnddc01...

I think we both know what the facts are - I just wondered when you'd
stop posturing about your own behavior and admit them yourself.
I know the facts, but have no knowledge of what you claim to know. Given
what you have claimed to know in the past, it would be a stretch to say
that you are connected to factual reality.

Dear Brian Lafferty,

I asked you for a simple chronology of your postings, being what you knew
and when you knew it. Period!

Instead of making any plain answer you decline to do so, then, by some
strange means known only to yourself, you decide that my question [!!!]
is not connected to 'factual reality'.

And yet the question seeks to resolve the factual reality, no?
And only you can say what you knew and when you knew it - these being the
'facts' in question.
I do not have such a chronology at my finger tips.


O come on! This is the tenth ask. I don't care about your finger tips, or
anything you can dash off on usenet, but am sure your memory of what you
wrote when you know resides in your mind.

You can obtain that by doing a posting search of your own. I have no
need, desire or obligation to do it for you.

Brian Lafferty - we are done! I already said we are, and your lack of direct
answer of what you knew when you wrote of the accusation, but not of it
being vacated by the court, is sufficient to what I sought to find out about
you.


But if you don't want to, then shall we agree that you wrote about the
accusations, but not that the issue was vacated?
I agree to nothing with you, Phil.
You say so much Brian, about others, but you are rather shy yourself.
If you were a USCF member with access to the USCF issues forum, you'd
see the factual incorrectness of your statement.

Vague references to what happens elsewhere under different condtions? But
my question is about what is happening here in an unmoderated forum -
but, as I said before, if you don't wish to answer here, that's ok - I
merely note that you do not.

Poor attempt at sophistry, Phil. You are not a USCF member, and are thus
unaware of much regarding moi.

I ask you a direct question here, and you, without benefit of knowledge of
English, suggest your non-direct answer is my sophistry. )


Phil Innes

postcript: as to Mr. Lafferty's final comment below, one he is fond
to repeat, shall we understand that that is also not anything normal
to legal apprehension, and that it too is 'political'?
Translation, please.
Why you write hate-speech? You surely can't pretend not to understand
that too!!
I am unaware of having written any hate speech. Please provide examples
or retract your patently stupid assertion.

Frequently suggesting that others are stupid, need help, and so on, when
they ask questions to establish the facts of an issue from those who have
them, seems to the context here.

Wrong, Phil.

What's wrong, Brian?

I suggest that you do so research into what hate speech is considered,
and you will see the error of your assertion.

I am telling you what I consider it to be. You do not contest your
behavior - you merely quibble over what to term it. pfft!

If you want to volunteer proclamations about other people, instead of
answering their questions, then that is your choice. Putting the
questioner down, rather than addressing the question is the point!~

Phil, pointing out the stupidity and/or inanity of your statements is what
free speech is all about.

In which country? Free speech does not give you any right to abuse people in
the USA, does it? Or do you offer us a legal opinion or a political one?
Again you do not deny what you do, you only wish to term it something
acceptable to others. OK - but these are your issues - you raise them not
me. I asked 3 simple questions, and obtained what information you
volunteered and what you did not. That was what I intended to achieve about
your honesty in reporting.

If you can't take the heat, don't post to Usenet. Stay in your safe
little Chessville forum home and/or over at the Trolgar controlled web
sites.

I have been here much longer than you, Rafferty. And 'heat' from you? Good
grief! You //conspicuously// hide when asked plain questions.


These are patently logical assertions resulting from a simple and direct
question. If /you/ do not answer a direct question in a direct way - it
is logical to insult the questioner for having asked it?

Does it publicly insult and demean them?

I thank you for your responses to date. I have established what I wanted
to find out.

You're quite welcome even if you understand so little of what you have
"found out."

As well as telling others what they think, you are also prepared to tell
them what they understand? Gawd! And when the subject is understand about
you, and you do not answer directly - then let the people make up their own
minds what they understand.

That's good enough for me.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes

Or maybe you can not understand it, since who actually would notice or
care much in your ensemble?
Translation, please.

Phil Innes

3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above,
that this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the
Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he
is himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.
Earth to Phil. Your assumptions are not reality. I'll ignore the
remaineder of your verbal stupidity.
Another significant omission! Heuch! It is sometimes important in
collective issues to establish who should decide what about whom by
their candor and character, rather than their politics.

Now, please, Phi. Get professional help.
You have been of more help in these responses than you know, and
you are a professional, no?
Sadly, not the type of professional help that you need.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:_ypek.194$jS4.139@trnddc07...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:0Haek.72$Cw5.21@trnddc01...

I think we both know what the facts are - I just wondered when you'd
stop posturing about your own behavior and admit them yourself.
I know the facts, but have no knowledge of what you claim to know. Given
what you have claimed to know in the past, it would be a stretch to say
that you are connected to factual reality.
Dear Brian Lafferty,

I asked you for a simple chronology of your postings, being what you knew
and when you knew it. Period!

Instead of making any plain answer you decline to do so, then, by some
strange means known only to yourself, you decide that my question [!!!]
is not connected to 'factual reality'.

And yet the question seeks to resolve the factual reality, no?
And only you can say what you knew and when you knew it - these being the
'facts' in question.
I do not have such a chronology at my finger tips.


O come on! This is the tenth ask. I don't care about your finger tips, or
anything you can dash off on usenet, but am sure your memory of what you
wrote when you know resides in your mind.

You can obtain that by doing a posting search of your own. I have no
need, desire or obligation to do it for you.

Brian Lafferty - we are done!


Promise?

I already said we are, and your lack of direct
answer of what you knew when you wrote of the accusation, but not of it
being vacated by the court, is sufficient to what I sought to find out about
you.

But if you don't want to, then shall we agree that you wrote about the
accusations, but not that the issue was vacated?
I agree to nothing with you, Phil.
You say so much Brian, about others, but you are rather shy yourself.
If you were a USCF member with access to the USCF issues forum, you'd
see the factual incorrectness of your statement.
Vague references to what happens elsewhere under different condtions? But
my question is about what is happening here in an unmoderated forum -
but, as I said before, if you don't wish to answer here, that's ok - I
merely note that you do not.
Poor attempt at sophistry, Phil. You are not a USCF member, and are thus
unaware of much regarding moi.

I ask you a direct question here, and you, without benefit of knowledge of
English, suggest your non-direct answer is my sophistry. )

Phil Innes

postcript: as to Mr. Lafferty's final comment below, one he is fond
to repeat, shall we understand that that is also not anything normal
to legal apprehension, and that it too is 'political'?
Translation, please.
Why you write hate-speech? You surely can't pretend not to understand
that too!!
I am unaware of having written any hate speech. Please provide examples
or retract your patently stupid assertion.
Frequently suggesting that others are stupid, need help, and so on, when
they ask questions to establish the facts of an issue from those who have
them, seems to the context here.
Wrong, Phil.

What's wrong, Brian?

I suggest that you do so research into what hate speech is considered,
and you will see the error of your assertion.

I am telling you what I consider it to be. You do not contest your
behavior - you merely quibble over what to term it. pfft!

If you want to volunteer proclamations about other people, instead of
answering their questions, then that is your choice. Putting the
questioner down, rather than addressing the question is the point!~
Phil, pointing out the stupidity and/or inanity of your statements is what
free speech is all about.

In which country? Free speech does not give you any right to abuse people in
the USA, does it? Or do you offer us a legal opinion or a political one?
Again you do not deny what you do, you only wish to term it something
acceptable to others. OK - but these are your issues - you raise them not
me. I asked 3 simple questions, and obtained what information you
volunteered and what you did not. That was what I intended to achieve about
your honesty in reporting.

If you can't take the heat, don't post to Usenet. Stay in your safe
little Chessville forum home and/or over at the Trolgar controlled web
sites.

I have been here much longer than you, Rafferty. And 'heat' from you? Good
grief! You //conspicuously// hide when asked plain questions.

These are patently logical assertions resulting from a simple and direct
question. If /you/ do not answer a direct question in a direct way - it
is logical to insult the questioner for having asked it?

Does it publicly insult and demean them?

I thank you for your responses to date. I have established what I wanted
to find out.
You're quite welcome even if you understand so little of what you have
"found out."

As well as telling others what they think, you are also prepared to tell
them what they understand? Gawd! And when the subject is understand about
you, and you do not answer directly - then let the people make up their own
minds what they understand.

That's good enough for me.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes

Or maybe you can not understand it, since who actually would notice or
care much in your ensemble?
Translation, please.
Phil Innes

3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above,
that this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the
Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he
is himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.
Earth to Phil. Your assumptions are not reality. I'll ignore the
remaineder of your verbal stupidity.
Another significant omission! Heuch! It is sometimes important in
collective issues to establish who should decide what about whom by
their candor and character, rather than their politics.

Now, please, Phi. Get professional help.
You have been of more help in these responses than you know, and
you are a professional, no?
Sadly, not the type of professional help that you need.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes