illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message
...
The comments quoted by Nick Bourbaki about Smyslov do not necessarily equate
to a weakness at tactics, in general.

For the record, I did *not* write anything about Vasily Smyslov's "weakness
at tactics, in general". Instead, I wrote (earlier in this thread):

"According to the exalted standards of the world champions (e.g. Mikhail Tal,
who was cited by GM Andrew Soltis, whom I quoted), evidently, Vasily Smyslov
has been regarded as *comparatively* weak at tactical calculations."

Another interpretation might be that some players considered Smyslov to be
quite booked-up on the openings and quite strong in the endgame, but not as
strong in the middlegame (moves 25-35 were mentioned as a weakspot).

That interpretation seems consistent with what I wrote and quoted earlier.

Losing ground from moves 25-35 could also indicate a problem with time
management, as moves 1-25 generally offer less worry about a flag-falling,
and plenty of opportunity to squander thinking time.

As far as I know, Vasily Smyslov did not have a reputation as a zeitnot addict.

Note that "resolving" a clear advantage into a simple win is no easy task
against top players.

I already knew that.

I also wonder if it could be true that Smyslov really had a clear advantage
in "virtually" every game in the 1967 tourney at move 25, and was really
"lost" by move 35? This looks like an exageration to me.

NoMoreChess's exaggerated statement is *not* quite what GM Andrew Soltis wrote:

"Thanks to his general positional instincts and opening preparation, Smyslov
had a clear edge in virtually every game by move 25. But by move 35 he was
*often* lost, because he had to resolve the position by calculation, which was
a problem for him."
--GM Andrew Soltis (The Inner Game of Chess, p. 19)

"Thou lookest far into eternity, with those bright eyes! Then tell me what
thou seest?"
--Nathaniel Hawthorne (The Scarlet Letter)

--Nick

..
Not surprisingly, Nick Bourbaki, after posting words to one effect, retreats
to "safer ground" by emphasizing certain words which soften the implied
criticism of former world champion Smyslov's tactical abilities.

One example is the word "relatively," which we are perhaps to believe means
Smyslov was tactically weak relative to, say, Tal, which he no doubt was, so
long as the *soundness* of Tal's many tactical adventures is ignored.

But the original criticism compared Smyslov's fortune against lesser players,
against his many opponents in a strong tourney in 1967, which I somehow doubt
consisted of the following: Fischer, Spassky, Botvinnik, Tal, and Petrosian.
Granted, I don't have handy access to that tournament's crosstable, and I will
note that a search at chesslab produced only two games by Smyslov for that
year: both of them nice wins against Victor Kortchnoi, who was no slouch. In
one of these games, Smyslov demonstrated not only excellent positional
judgement, but superb mastery of the Rook endgame where he was -- *due to
superior middlegame play* -- in effect, a pawn ahead, which he managed to
convert despite the maxim that "all Rook and Pawn endings are drawn."


Thus, Nick wrote, that Soltis wrote, that Tal wrote, that Smyslov was
comparatively weak at tactics, but he failed to supply a key ingredient of that
recipe: weak compared to whom? Has Nick (or Andy) any actual examples of games
from that particular tourney he wishes to present (where Smyslov tosses a win
betwixt moves 25 and 30), or are we to simply "buy" Soltis' story, like his
many opening "repertoire" potboilers?



"...but you have to admit, it makes for a good story!" -- Larry Evans

Evidently, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") has begun to resume his favourite
pastime here of "trolling for a flame war" (to quote John Macnab, whom
Greg Kennedy kept calling "Mr. McBad"), which involves Kennedy's usual
mischaracterisations of what other persons have written.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message
...
Not surprisingly, Nick Bourbaki, after posting words to one effect, retreats
to "safer ground" by emphasizing certain words which soften the implied
criticism of former world champion Smyslov's tactical abilities.

What I have written and quoted (from GM Andrew Soltis) in this thread has been
consistent, though Greg Kennedy evidently hopes that the reader will believe
otherwise. Please read my posts earlier in this thread for yourself; please do
*not* accept Kennedy's usually distorted characterisations of what I write.

Please note that Greg Kennedy prefers to snip completely my original words in
order to make it easier for him to attack them (at least implicitly) in his
distorted form out of context. For the record, I wrote earlier:

"According to the exalted standards of the world champions, *evidently*, Vasily
Smyslov has been regarded as *comparatively* weak at tactical calculations."

One example is the word "relatively," which we are perhaps to believe means
Smyslov was tactically weak relative to, say, Tal, which he no doubt was, so
long as the *soundness* of Tal's many tactical adventures is ignored.

For the record, the term was "comparatively", not "relatively".

But the original criticism compared Smyslov's fortune against lesser players,
against his many opponents in a strong tourney in 1967, which I somehow doubt
consisted of the following: Fischer, Spassky, Botvinnik, Tal, and Petrosian.

According to GM Andrew Soltis, it was the 1967 Soviet Championship.

Granted, I don't have handy access to that tournament's crosstable...

So Greg Kennedy has admitted that he has no specific facts to support his
premature, if not unwarranted, criticisms of Mikhail Tal, Andrew Soltis (who
cited Tal), or me (who quoted Soltis).

In the thread, "Mig Migged" (9 July 2003), Ed Seedhouse wrote to "NoMoreChess":
"NoMoreChess's main hobby seems to be putting words into other people's mouths.
Of course, the rational among us will observe that I never made any such
conclusion, but I'm sure that NoMoreChess won't let that stop him...."

'There seems in human nature a worthlessness not to be conquered.'
--Fanny Burney (Cecilia)

--Nick

..
While the mysterious "Greg Kennedy" never seems to mind being confounded for
me -- and therefore subjected to frequent ad hominem rants by the "gentleman"
known as "Nick the liar" -- I should like to point out that
it is a very bad habit to hide behind the skirts of other posters, when there
is no great danger in expressing your own opinions.

"There is nothing to fear, but fear, itself."

OTOH, I do understand why Mr. Bourbaki, AKA "Nick the liar," seems to feel
that his opinions have no real weight, and he must therefore rely upon the
faint hope that some readers may have more respect for the opinions of random
others, which Mr. Bourbaki has managed to cull from the negative responses to a
multitude of postings I have made these past few months. If anyone was
wondering what it is that Nick does with his spare time, he need wonder no
more. LOL



As for substance -- a rare and beautiful thing in these newsgroups --
Nickolous has managed to point out yet another of his many weasel-words:
"evidently."
Evidently, Nick said, that Soltis said, that Tal said something, but that
something stands very, very alone, with no real evidence presented here to back
it up, so far.
I went looking (to chesslab) and found two good examples of Smyslov playing
very, very well in 1967, with no tactical oversights and no conversion
troubles.

As I recall, *several* top Soviets had difficulties converting against Sammy
Reshevsky in a much earlier important event, and their failures were not only
surprising given the immense size of their advantages, but also surprising in
that several different players failed similarly, despite having different
styles, and certainly they were not overmatched. In that event, there was
strong evidence that the Soviets *in general* had a Reshevsky "problem," very
much like the one attributed to Smyslov in 1967. (I must exclude Botvinnik,
for he alone handled Reshevsky the way you are supposed to when you have a huge
advantage.)

Greg Kennedy (aka "NoMoreChess") has written more of his trolling nonsense
in his obsessive continuing campaign of lying personal attacks against me.
Given that Greg Kennedy tends to reiterate his lies without any variation,
please read my earlier post wherein I have addressed some of his lies:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?X5D821A16

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message
...
While the mysterious "Greg Kennedy" never seems to mind being confounded
for me

Greg Kennedy seems far less "mysterious" than "NoMoreChess" would prefer to
have the innocent reader believe. A Google search shows that Greg Kennedy
has written many posts under his real name in these chess newsgroups.

As far as I know, Larry Parr first publicly identified "NoMoreChess" as Greg
Kennedy. Some other readers and I have compared the posts of "NoMoreChess"
with those known to have been written by Greg Kennedy, and their distinctive
prose style *is* identical. Hence, the preponderance of evidence shows that
"NoMoreChess" and Greg Kennedy are the same writer.

Would "NoMoreChess" care to make an absolute formal denial of the assertion
that he is Greg Kennedy? Larry Parr and others might be interested.

If Greg Kennedy feels displeased by the responses to his making, evidently
under the pseudonym of "NoMoreChess", continuing personal attacks on other
writers here, then he should stop making those personal attacks under any name.

-- and therefore subjected to frequent ad hominem rants by the "gentleman"
known as "Nick the liar"

Only the deranged anonymous troll "Briarroot" has called me "Nick the liar".

Briarroot's motives for writing *anything* about me are clearly expressed here.
In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), "Briarroot" wrote
to me: "...Now this I readily admit to. You deserve to be insulted, roundly
and repeatedly. I consider it my duty to expose you..."

Greg Kennedy's declared support for his fellow troll Briarroot's deranged
obsession does not warrant any response from me beyond disdain.

-- I should like to point out that it is a very bad habit to hide behind the
skirts of other posters, when there is no great danger in expressing your own
opinions.

That's an *interesting* (sarcasm intended) assertion from someone writing under
a pseudonym, "NoMoreChess", who has just made an attempt (near this post's top)
to conceal his evident real name, Greg Kennedy.

My point in quoting other writers here about "NoMoreChess" is simply that
"NoMoreChess" (Greg Kennedy) already has a widely established reputation as
an inveterate troll who routinely misrepresents, or simply lies about, other
writers in his habitual course of making personal attacks on them.

OTOH, I do understand why Mr. Bourbaki, AKA "Nick the liar,"

Given Greg Kennedy's eagerness to endorse the opinions of the deranged troll
"Briarroot", would Greg Kennedy also like to endorse Briarroot's statements
about the moral imperative of committing genocide ("killing every single
enemy civilian") whenever ordered to on behalf of the United States?

seems to feel that his opinions have no real weight, and he must therefore
rely upon the faint hope that some readers may have more respect for the
opinions of random others,

Those "random others" are writers here who have interacted with (evidently,
usually in response to NoMoreChess's personal attacks) "NoMoreChess", going
further back than I have been doing with him in this newsgroup. Those
"random others" write with the voice of experience about how "NoMoreChess"
has treated them. Evidently, "NoMoreChess" (or Greg Kennedy) has been trolling
other persons here before I ever had any contact with him.

which Mr. Bourbaki has managed to cull from the negative responses to a
multitude of postings I have made these past few months. If anyone was
wondering what it is that Nick does with his spare time, he need wonder no
more. LOL

Actually, I have not troubled to read many, if not most, of NoMoreChess's posts.
Indeed, when I became aware (by E-mail) of NoMoreChess's personal attacks on me
in RGCP a few months ago, I did not trouble to read them or to write responses.

I have quoted some critical comments about "NoMoreChess" from several of the
perhaps many writers whom he has offended by his many personal attacks. And
I have little doubt that a more thorough search of the Usenet archives could
find more critical comments about "NoMoreChess" (or Greg Kennedy) than I have
the time or space to quote. In short, evidently, many readers here already
have recognised that "NoMoreChess" is an inveterate troll, if not a habitual
liar, who might well deserve a place in nearly everyone's 'killfile'.

What will Greg Kennedy (aka "NoMoreChess") distort or lie about next?

Here are some comments on my posts here from a broad variety of readers:

Jerome Bibuld (14 May 2003):
"The general tenor of your posts has been so heartwarmingly human and
winningly intelligent."

Bill Brock (10 July 2003):
"Bravo. I concur with all your major points."

Jerzy Ciruk (5 August 2003):
"You are absolutely right." (about the Soviet media's coverage of Kasparov)

Wlodizimierz Holsztynski (11 May 2003):
"And I am American in much much more important ways too. But I felt
entertained and amused by your posts and quotes, it was nice."

Mark Houlsby (15 September 2003:
"Nick's post is typically lucid and balanced."

John Macnab (17 May 2003):
"Great story! Thanks."

George Mirijanian (12 June 2003):
"I agree with Nick." (on my translation of 'gens una sumus')

Simon Spivack (31 May 2003):
"He (I) is a welcome regular contributor to this group."

Larry Tapper (21 April 2003):
"I've been enjoying your scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."

Tim Hanke (21 April 2003) to Larry Tapper about me:
"I too enjoy his (my) scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."

fiat lux
--Nick

..
Does "Nick the liar" also keep records of the many negative responses to his
postings here? It would seem that in presenting only the most positive
comments as representing the "true" Nick Bourbaki, he reinforces the aspects of
his obesessed personality which led to his being branded "Nick the liar" in the
first place. A misrepresenter and twister of facts. A spin-doctor.


Asking me the rhetorical question: would I endorse Briarroot's position on
genocide being equivalent to victory in war, is a well-known tactic called
changing the subject.
Not particularly impressive -- a more skilled rhetorician could do far better,
but it is really just a matter of technique.


To the rhetorical question: do I endorse Briarroot's considered opinion that
Nick Bourbaki is a liar, a distorter of facts, the answer is a resounding
"yes." The proof has already been given here, but I must remind readers that
just because someone has been proved a liar, this does not mean that everything
he says is a lie. Most such liars lie only to keep from telling the truth.

Mr. Bourbaki's main problem, apart from arrogance that is, is his angst. He
cannot handle it when someone disagrees on any issue, and goes right into his
trademark ad hominem mode, desperately lashing out in all directions.




A Google search shows that Greg Kennedy
has written many posts under his real name in these chess newsgroups.


LOL! A Google search indeed. What happenned to *blindly* trusting Larry
Parr on this, despite his clear record of identity confusion and delusion?
What happenned to Mr. Bourbaki's sophisticated text comparison skills? What
about my alleged close resemblance to Jason Repa, to The Historian, and to a
multitude of others? I can't be ALL of them. Or can I? We must certainly add
"mixed-up" to the list of adjectives which describe "Nick the liar," whom I
have never yet confounded for someone else, although there are certain
similarities in style. The key difference I have noted is a fundamental
over-reliance upon quotations of others. If "Nick the liar" always preferred
to quote himself, he could easily be confused for some of the other posters
here.


May I suggest a simul-match in which "Nick the liar" plays both me and the
real Gregg Kennedy -- that should clear things up a bit! :-)

For my part, I will play both Nickolous and his bootman, Mark Baloney --
preferably slow games, for I am relatively weak in tactics.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
Does "Nick the liar" also keep records of the many negative responses to his
postings here?

That's a very good question, Greg. Do you, Nick?

It would seem that in presenting only the most positive
comments as representing the "true" Nick Bourbaki, he reinforces the aspects of
his obesessed personality which led to his being branded "Nick the liar" in the
first place.

No, it wouldn't. That would confirm no more, and no less, than that
you are an inveterate, illiterate troll. A personality cannot be
obsessed. A person can be obsessed. A personality can be obsessive.
Nick is not obsessed, his personality is not obsessive. It's just that
he has yet to smoak that you *want* him to continue to respond to your
trolling, so that you can continue to troll him.

He'll get there, eventually.

A misrepresenter and twister of facts. A spin-doctor.

So, you're describing yourself again, Greg Kennedy?



Asking me the rhetorical question: would I endorse Briarroot's position on
genocide being equivalent to victory in war, is a well-known tactic called
changing the subject.

No. It's trying to determine whether you have even a modicum of
intelligence.

Not particularly impressive -- a more skilled rhetorician could do far better,
but it is really just a matter of technique.


You need to brush up your comprehension skills....

To the rhetorical question: do I endorse Briarroot's considered opinion that
Nick Bourbaki is a liar, a distorter of facts, the answer is a resounding
"yes."

OK! This is real progress! You're *admitting* that like the idiot
troll Briarroot, you:

1) are an idiot

and

2) intend to troll Bourbaki indefinitely

Thanks for letting us know!


The proof has already been given here,

Wrong.

but I must remind readers that
just because someone has been proved a liar, this does not mean that everything
he says is a lie. Most such liars lie only to keep from telling the truth.


Do you have statistical evidence to support this?

Mr. Bourbaki's main problem, apart from arrogance that is, is his angst. He
cannot handle it when someone disagrees on any issue, and goes right into his
trademark ad hominem mode, desperately lashing out in all directions.


Oh, he can handle a person's disagreeing with him, but he gets too
annoyed about people trolling him. Unlike you, he *never* resorts to
ad hominem.

You're not often right, but you're wrong again.


A Google search shows that Greg Kennedy
has written many posts under his real name in these chess newsgroups.


LOL! A Google search indeed. What happenned to *blindly* trusting Larry
Parr on this, despite his clear record of identity confusion and delusion?
What happenned to Mr. Bourbaki's sophisticated text comparison skills? What
about my alleged close resemblance to Jason Repa, to The Historian, and to a
multitude of others?

What about it? You admitted above that you *are* a troll and that you
*intend* to continue to troll at every opportunity. What's your point?
Is there any point to you, Greg?


I can't be ALL of them.

You can't be any of them. You can be LIKE all of them - a troll.

Or can I? We must certainly add
"mixed-up" to the list of adjectives which describe "Nick the liar,"

No, that would be *you* again, Greg Kennedy...

whom I
have never yet confounded for someone else,

Just now, you mistook him for *yourself*. Are you a fan of Oliver
Sacks, or perhaps Michael Nyman?

although there are certain
similarities in style. The key difference I have noted is a fundamental
over-reliance upon quotations of others. If "Nick the liar" always preferred
to quote himself, he could easily be confused for some of the other posters
here.


*You* could easily confuse him with your bathtub, no doubt. Anyone
with a modicum of intelligence should not, however.


May I suggest a simul-match in which "Nick the liar" plays both me and the
real Gregg Kennedy -- that should clear things up a bit! :-)


Why should he do that? Your having multiple personalities might be a
reason to contact Dr. Sacks, but your impression that you can play a
simul, mano a mano, against just *one* guy, is simply more compelling
evidence of your being mentally unbalanced.

For my part, I will play both Nickolous and his bootman, Mark Baloney --
preferably slow games, for I am relatively weak in tactics.

Who is this "Mark Baloney" dude, anyways? Is he good? (That he should
be better than I am, goes without saying...). What is he, an IM?

Nice job, Greg. You've admitted that you're a troll, and that you have
no intention of quitting. This is duly noted.

Mark Houlsby

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message
...
(trolling nonsense snipped)
Evidently, Nick said, that Soltis said, that Tal said something, but that
something stands very, very alone, with no real evidence presented here to
back it up, so far.

I quoted GM Andrew Soltis, who cited GM Mikhail Tal.
Where is NoMoreChess's "real evidence" to prove that they must have been wrong?

I went looking (to chesslab) and found two good examples of Smyslov playing
very, very well in 1967, with no tactical oversights and no conversion
troubles.

As I already have written (which Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") seems determined
to ignore or to distort) Andrew Soltis wrote about Mikhail Tal's comment that
Vasily Smyslov evidently often (not always) had tactical difficulties in
*one particular tournament, the 1967 Soviet Championship*.

The fact that Smyslov may have played well tactically in *two other games*
in 1967 is *irrelevant* to what Soltis wrote about Tal's comment.

'What expect out of a folly but fools?'
--George Meredith (The Ordeal of Richard Feverel)

--Nick

In pursuit of his favourite pastime here of "trolling for a flame war"
(to quote John Macnab), Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") has written another
personal attack, full of his characteristic distortions and lies, against me.

Please read my earlier response to Greg Kennedy's personal attacks:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X5D821A16

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in
message ...

Does "Nick the liar" also keep records of the many negative responses to
his postings here? It would seem that in presenting only the most positive
comments as representing the "true" Nick Bourbaki, he reinforces the aspects
of his obesessed personality which led to his being branded "Nick the liar"
in the first place.

Only Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") and his fellow deranged troll "Briarroot"
have called me "Nick the liar". Tim Hanke did create the troll thread,
"Nick Bourbaki's many lies", in order to make a direct personal attack
against me, and then Hanke could provide *no evidence whatsoever* of my
alleged "many lies".

Like his fellow troll "Briarroot", Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") may fail to
understand that simply repeatedly calling someone else a "liar" does *not*
make that accusation true, however much Kennedy wishes to believe it.

Does Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") believe that everyone--a broad variety of
readers--who has commended my posts here must be lying?

A misrepresenter and twister of facts. A spin-doctor.

"No matter how many times NoMoreChess repeats his misrepresentation
of what I wrote, it will not become true."
--Louis Blair (29 March 2003, "Iraqi's Defense")

To the rhetorical question: do I endorse Briarroot's considered opinion that
Nick Bourbaki is a liar, a distorter of facts, the answer is a resounding
"yes."

In the thread, "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" (13 August 2003),
"Briarroot" wrote to "NoMoreChess": "You're being disingenuous...."

So Briarroot's "considered opinion" was that Greg Kennedy's "disingenuous".
Otherwise, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") and "Briarroot" could indeed become a
couple of mutually admiring and devoted trolls (of compatible mentalities).

Briarroot's motives for writing *anything about me* are clearly expressed he
In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), "Briarroot" wrote
to me: "...Now this I readily admit to. You deserve to be insulted, roundly
and repeatedly. I consider it my duty to expose you..."

Here are some more examples of Briarroot's deeply "considered opinions":

In the thread, "OT Dresden teapots" (16 August 2003), "Briarroot" wrote:
"The bottom line is that there is only one moral imperative in war. That is to
win for your side, while preserving as many of the lives of *your own* troops
as possible. If killing every single enemy civilian can save the lives of a
single one of your soldiers, it is the task of Generals to see that it happens."

In the thread, "OT Dresden teapots" (17 August 2003), "Briarroot" wrote:
"What I did was point out the obvious; that if all of the enemy are dead, then
the war is over and can be considered to have been successfully concluded.
This has been long been the model of war making by the human race. Recent
European tradition (inherited by their former colonies) in the last several
centuries has moderated this model, but the older system is still sound."

The proof has already been given here, but I must remind readers that just
because someone has been proved a liar, this does not mean that everything
he says is a lie. Most such liars lie only to keep from telling the truth.

That ludicrous alleged 'proof' (consisting entirely of mutually referencing
lies in a circular argument) exists only in the deranged imaginations of
the inveterate trolls, "Briarroot" and "NoMoreChess" (Greg Kennedy).

Mr. Bourbaki's main problem, apart from arrogance that is, is his angst.
He cannot handle it when someone disagrees on any issue, and goes right into
his trademark ad hominem mode, desperately lashing out in all directions.

That's another false statement about me by Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess").

For instance, Matt Nemmers and I evidently *disagree on many issues*.
Yet Mr. Nemmers and I always have been able to communicate with each other in
civil language. I cannot recall that Mr. Nemmers--unlike Greg Kennedy, who
has lied about me many times--has ever knowingly made a false statement about
me. Hence, I have personal respect for Matt Nemmers, but I have no personal
respect for Greg Kennedy, an inveterate troll and a pathological liar.

Also, whenever he decries ad hominem attacks, Greg Kennedy is being a hypocrite.
Greg Kennedy kept calling John Macnab, "Mr. McBad", while denouncing him for
allegedly making ad hominem attacks. That accusation against Mr. Macnab was
as false as Greg Kennedy's many other accusations against me.

(more trolling nonsense snipped)

If Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") hopes to convince most readers that I am even
less literate than he is, then he will have to learn how to write much better.

What will Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") lie about next?

"He was a falsehood done in flesh and blood."
--Mark Twain (The Gilded Age)

--Nick

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
. com...
illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in
message ...
Does "Nick the liar" also keep records of the many negative responses
to his postings here?

That's a very good question, Greg. Do you, Nick?

Dear Mr Houlsby,

No, what's the point? Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") or "Briarroot" or another
troll could easily write (as they have been doing) many posts of distortions
and lies about me, which then they could 'cite' as their 'proof' that I must
be guilty of whatever nonsense that they might care to project onto me.

A misrepresenter and twister of facts. A spin-doctor.

So, you're describing yourself again, Greg Kennedy?

As far as I know, at least several other writers here already have described
Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") in those terms or worse.

Mr. Bourbaki's main problem, apart from arrogance that is, is his angst.
He cannot handle it when someone disagrees on any issue, and goes right
into his trademark ad hominem mode, desperately lashing out in all
directions.

Oh, he can handle a person's disagreeing with him, but he gets too annoyed
about people trolling him. Unlike you, he *never* resorts to ad hominem.

You and I have had some disagreements. :-)

Shall we ask "Mr. McBad" (the name that Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") kept
calling John Macnab) what he thinks about Kennedy's professed aversion to
ad hominem attacks?

What about it? You admitted above that you *are* a troll and that you
*intend* to continue to troll at every opportunity. What's your point?
Is there any point to you, Greg?
...
Nice job, Greg. You've admitted that you're a troll, and that you have
no intention of quitting. This is duly noted.

Indeed, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") seems so obsessed about trolling me at
every possible opportunity that he once denounced me as an ignorant racist
after I had described Stan Booz--accurately--as a "white American" (after I
had been informed of that fact by someone who has met StanB in person).

'Falsehood hemmed him in to the narrowest ring that ever statue stood on, if
he meant to be stone.'
--George Meredith (Beauchamp's Career)

--Nick