actually my original post was about english only in regard to chess terms
like pawn promotion. the original poster wanted to queen a pawn into a
bishop etc. and you turned this into a diatribe about how little mark
houlsby knows and how offended he might be that someone else knows more.
the original poster's question was predicaated in his words, about advising
a chess expert. i sent him to a book for beginners. then you felt i must be
put upon. hardly an issue of good manners by you or square facts.

Oh dear, you're going downhill again. Posting unsupported vitriol
like: "...you barely speak English..." is wont to undermine your
credibility. You're right that I wrote: "...I couldn't resist..." but
the *context* of my having been unable to resist was your having used
BAD ENGLISH in berating another poster's English. In other words, you
did the deed of which you accuse me, to someone else, FIRST...

and i am
sure you have at least one more chromosome than the respondent who
pointed
out that queens are more powerful than rooks.

I seriously doubt that. That would make me a different species from
that respondent, and all other respondents, for that matter.

( please notice here that the
plural case of the two nouns match.)

A bit ignorant on the biology front, though, sadly......

and no one stops you from making poison even though we are not married,
which i presume is legal in your country with its strange language
customs.
-marc

England does indeed have strange language customs. I don't "make
poison" as you put it. What did you mean, exactly?

Best
Mark

"marc margolies" wrote in message ...
what you call vitriol in regard to my comments about your English usage is
supported by the fact that you appointed yourself the de facto monitor of
the english language here.

This is *not* about English language usage. It's about your having
been rude
to a poster, "Seabook", who, as far as I can tell, is new here, and
deserves
a warmer welcome than your horsewhipping for his having allegedly
maligned *your sensibilities* with regard to English usage.


also when you have taken the trouble to correct
me, your corrections are mostly very bad and wrong.

Give examples of this, troll.

most importantly troll, this is a chess forum and since you could not
appreciate the topic of my response you took it to an ad hominem level and
nervily-- i might add-- attempted to adjudicate the manners of others. Mark,
it is time to take the stick out of your ass an act like an adult-- or not.
mostly learn to read.

Give examples of my having misread or misrepresented you, troll.

then learn to think.

I'm working on that.

then learn english.

Do you mean: "Then, you might learn English."?

Physician heal thyself!

and if you
accomplish these human feats, which seems to be a stretch for you as you
think i am responsible for your education, try chess! (and then manners- but
why bother when you can 'prove' good manners don't exist because you have
never heard of them and don't care to discover them.)

If you display some manners towards "Seabook" and me, then I shall be
glad to reciprocate. Thus far, all you have done is troll, troll,
troll.

oh yeah i forgot-- you have the right to correct my english incorrectly
because you disagree with my opinions about chess on the internet.

Owing to its complete lack of punctuation, this sentence could be
interpreted in a number of disparate ways.

Here's one:

"Oh yeah...I forgot - you have to the right incorrectly to correct my
English because you disagree with my opinions about 'chess on the
internet'."

This interpretation seems unlikely, for two reasons:

1) I don't know if you *have* even *one* opinion about 'chess on the
internet', since I am unaware of your having expressed the same.

2) If you do have one or more opinions about 'chess on the internet',
then the fact that you've just introduced the tantalising possibility
that you wish the idea to be discussed, I am unable to venture
anything further until you elicit more information concerning your
opinion or opinions upon the topic.

Here's another one, which is perhaps a little more likely:

"Oh yeah...I forgot - you have the right incorrectly to correct my
English *because* you disagree with those opinions about chess which I
(Marc Margolies) have expressed on the internet."

Unfortunately, this, too, holds no water, since *at no time* have I
either agreed or disagreed with your opinions about chess, such as you
have essayed them, here.

What I *have* done, repeatedly (unfortunately to no avail...yet) is to
berate you for your being *incredibly rude* to people without your
having had *any* discernable, good reason for doing so. I shall
continue to berate you for this appalling behaviour until you *stop
behaving that way*. The more you do it, the more like an imbecile you
make yourself appear. This is really surprising, I had figured you for
a good guy. The more you persist, the more wrong I appear to have
been....

well,
houlsby, you haven't changed my mind about anything chessic, merely about
how educable you are. so i guess you now have a full-time job correcting my
views if you want it.

Once again: NOWHERE HAVE I CORRECTED YOUR VIEWS, YOU ILLITERATE,
IMBECILE OF A TROLL.

good luck and good-bye.

Right back atcha!

"marc margolies" wrote in message ...
actually my original post was about english only in regard to chess terms
like pawn promotion.

So, instead of writing "...english" (sic), why did you not write
"chess terms" or "chess terminology" or something similar?

the original poster wanted to queen a pawn into a
bishop etc. and you turned this into a diatribe about how little mark
houlsby knows and how offended he might be that someone else knows more.

Run that one by me again....? You seem to be trying to say that, in
the opinion of "little marc margolies", "Seabook" was wrong to have
written: "...Queening to rook or bishop" in the subject heading.

You took issue with him (or possibly her) for having done this.
Evidently, you thought it was perfectly alright for you to have done
this. Unfortunately, because of the rude and ignorant manner in which
you *attacked* a poster new to this group, for his/her having used
chess terminology which "little marc margolies" considers
inappropriate, "little mark houlsby" noticed your unwarranted,
inappropriate and, crucially, intrinsically *deeply* flawed attack
on said newbie, and pointed out, in a manner which was intended to be
good-humoured, your having made an idiot of yourself.

Everything which you have since posted in this thread has served
*only* to provide *further compelling evidence* of your being either
illiterate, or an idiot, or both.

the original poster's question was predicaated in his words, about advising
a chess expert.

Have you ever heard of "sarcasm"? Did it occur to you, even for a
moment, that "Seabook" might have *intended* to sound a tad sarcastic
in describing him/herself as an "expert". Did it occur to you, even
for a moment, that, having been landed with a task with respect to
which he/she felt inadequate, "Seabook" decided to ask the *real*
experts - in this group - how to *address* the problem with which
he/she is faced? What he/she got from you was a lot of incredibly rude
near-gibberish.

i sent him to a book for beginners.

Did you, indeed? Do you have proof of your having mailed it?

then you felt i must be
put upon.

Did I? I don't remember ever having *thought* (much less "felt") that.
Thanks for enlightening me....

hardly an issue of good manners by you or square facts.

On the contrary, this is *entirely* "an issue of good manners" - and
your apparently lacking them completely.

I do hope that "Seabook" posts again. Equally, I hope that you do not,
ignorant, stupid troll.

Have a nice day, now...

"Jeff Shirton" wrote in message ...
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
om...

so clearly one of your 'improvements' does not appear to
improve the clarity of my phrasing. 'iff ' is a standard
abbreviation for 'if and only if.'

That's news to me.

Well, he's right.


Not for one moment did I suspect that he was *not* right...

I can find no reference to this. Could you cite one, please?

I did a Google search on iff+"if and only if". Here are some
of the results:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?...nd%20only%20if
http://splorg.org/people/tobin/projects/quinto/iff.html
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/arc...001-00773.html

It's even in the Merriam-Webster dictionary!
http://www.m-w.com/

I guess you didn't look very hard, did you?


Indeed not...I have a life. I think that the crucial point is that
because, evidently, I am more ignorant of the topic than you are, I
was unsure of exactly *which* search criteria to stipulate, which
resulted in my searches throwing up a lot of chaff, but no wheat that
I could discern. If I had possessed your, or Mr. Bourbaki's, knowledge
of the term "iff" I might have been able to take more care in choosing
search criteria. Thanks to Mr. Bourbaki and you, I am now a little
less ignorant of the term.

In my defence, I should point out that I am not a mathematician, and
that this newsgroup pertains neither to mathematics, nor to logic, but
to *chess*, and that therefore this might excuse my ignorance of this
rather specialist term.

My principal argument with the troll Marc Margolies concerned his
having been incredibly rude to a newbie. Worse, in being incredibly
rude, he betrayed his own carelessness, ignorance and stupidity. Let
us hope that he has now stopped.

Thanks for your post.

Mark

That was nifty. What about "ifin"?

From: (PJDBAD)
Date: 08/10/03 01:18 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

That was nifty. What about "ifin"?


My favourite word is "effinge", which means: "to fashion" as in: "He fashioned
the walrus tusk into several chess pieces."

That, however, is not the main reason why I like it.

The main reason why I like it is because it is "effing" (as in "effing and
ceeing") with an "e" added to the end.

well i have heard of nothing but sarcasm from houlsby, so why do you ask?
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
om...
"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
actually my original post was about english only in regard to chess
terms
like pawn promotion.

So, instead of writing "...english" (sic), why did you not write
"chess terms" or "chess terminology" or something similar?

the original poster wanted to queen a pawn into a
bishop etc. and you turned this into a diatribe about how little mark
houlsby knows and how offended he might be that someone else knows more.

Run that one by me again....? You seem to be trying to say that, in
the opinion of "little marc margolies", "Seabook" was wrong to have
written: "...Queening to rook or bishop" in the subject heading.

You took issue with him (or possibly her) for having done this.
Evidently, you thought it was perfectly alright for you to have done
this. Unfortunately, because of the rude and ignorant manner in which
you *attacked* a poster new to this group, for his/her having used
chess terminology which "little marc margolies" considers
inappropriate, "little mark houlsby" noticed your unwarranted,
inappropriate and, crucially, intrinsically *deeply* flawed attack
on said newbie, and pointed out, in a manner which was intended to be
good-humoured, your having made an idiot of yourself.

Everything which you have since posted in this thread has served
*only* to provide *further compelling evidence* of your being either
illiterate, or an idiot, or both.

the original poster's question was predicaated in his words, about
advising
a chess expert.

Have you ever heard of "sarcasm"? Did it occur to you, even for a
moment, that "Seabook" might have *intended* to sound a tad sarcastic
in describing him/herself as an "expert". Did it occur to you, even
for a moment, that, having been landed with a task with respect to
which he/she felt inadequate, "Seabook" decided to ask the *real*
experts - in this group - how to *address* the problem with which
he/she is faced? What he/she got from you was a lot of incredibly rude
near-gibberish.

i sent him to a book for beginners.

Did you, indeed? Do you have proof of your having mailed it?

then you felt i must be
put upon.

Did I? I don't remember ever having *thought* (much less "felt") that.
Thanks for enlightening me....

hardly an issue of good manners by you or square facts.

On the contrary, this is *entirely* "an issue of good manners" - and
your apparently lacking them completely.

I do hope that "Seabook" posts again. Equally, I hope that you do not,
ignorant, stupid troll.

Have a nice day, now...

Did you realize that there was more than one way to pronounce "if."

From: "marc margolies"
Date: 08/10/03 02:34 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

well i have heard of nothing but sarcasm from houlsby, so why do you ask?


This is a *newsgroup*, so instead of trying to *hear* its content, perhaps you
should try *reading* instead.

'Do you know how to read, you ignorant ****?'
--The Shawshank Redemption (dir. Frank Darabont, adapted from: 'Rita Hayworth
and the Shawshank Redemption' by Stephen King)

dont challenge foolsbe about anything intellectual
the fin in if'n belongs in a different kettle of fish.
"PJDBAD" wrote in message
...
Did you realize that there was more than one way to pronounce "if."