"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message news:6K0Lb.88386
So Lance.....

Is the "real" Liam really dead, as suspected by several of our beloved RGCP
posters?

Regards, Matt

Matt,

At least his domain, , is dead in this RGCP neck of the
woods. However, I've seen him post here under a different domain a
month ago.

Lance

On 8 Jan 2004 08:37:05 -0800, (Liam Too) wrote:

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message news:6K0Lb.88386
So Lance.....

Is the "real" Liam really dead, as suspected by several of our beloved RGCP
posters?

Regards, Matt

Matt,

At least his domain, , is dead in this RGCP neck of the
woods. However, I've seen him post here under a different domain a
month ago.

Lance

was always a fake address.

Sam Sloan

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message news:z64Lb.22158$P%

For whatever it's worth, Lance Smith ("Liam Too") also has written that he
has access to 'inside information' (not a quotation of him) about Bobby
Fischer from private sources in the Philippines.

--Nick

TMB,

You are a very smart person especially in using google. Try and google
what Nick told about me about and you'll find out why they call him
what they call him.

Lance

Mail, I don't really care. This thread was nominally about a lawsuit, but
like all things RGCP, it's turned into a meta-thread: posting about posters.
Yawn.

TMB

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
igy.com...
Thanks. Also for whatever it's worth: I choose the Masked Bishop moniker
because I was going to use an alias on the usenet regardless, and it seemed
more amusing (and honest) to use one that's so obviously silly, rather than
just make up a name or use the word "mail" backwards.

"The Masked Bishop", I can understand your reasoning.

'Bourbaki' is a well-known pseudonym for a group of mathematicians.
It does not refer to any known living individual person.
Accordingly, no one (apart from the disturbed Wlodzimierz ("I have never
insulted anyone") Holsztynski) should feel defamed by my usage of it.

My reasons for using an alias are not because I'm some secret insider in the
US Chess community, but because I think the Usenet is a pretty lawless, wild
place, and I believe it pays to protect one's identity from people one
doesn't, and can't, know.

Sherlock Holmes: 'Excellence at chess is one mark of a scheming mind.'
--Arthur Conan Doyle (The Adventure of the Retired Colourman)

I prefer to accept other writers here on their own terms as much as I honestly
can. To me, you are essentially represented only by whatever you write here.
You have the right to decide how much you are willing to reveal about yourself
personally. (I feel that Sam Sloan reveals too much about himself personally,
but I don't have to read all of it.)

When a writer makes a personal claim, my acceptance of it depends on its
plausibility and the evidence provided to support it. If someone claims to
have a licence to drive an automobile, then I would tend to accept it without
asking for any supporting evidence. If someone claims to be a driver for a
Formula 1 racing team, then I would have to ask for one's supporting evidence.

When recently in the thread, "Sportsmanship and pre-arranged results",
I responded to Mike Murray's trolling by writing simply that I am stronger
than an 'ordinary club player' (for instance, USCF class C) at chess, Mike
Murray apparently accused me, in effect, of making a boast. In my view,
my claim was hardly extraordinary, and I have no more need to prove it than
I should have to prove that I have a safe record for driving an automobile.

Someone else can disagree with me on nearly any subject without losing my
personal respect if one does it in an intellectually honest way. I like to
assume that other writers here are being honest with me until I have reason
to believe otherwise. I do take exception to those writers who have lied
to me or about me, and I tend not to trust or to respect them any more.

As I am only human, occasionally I do make mistakes (such as a few misspellings
of other writers' names here), but I attempt to correct those mistakes about
as soon as I become aware of them, even if I have not yet been asked to do so.

"The Masked Bishop", I have to say that your writings here seem to represent
two distinct personalities. Sometimes you have written evidently thoughtful
posts with interesting points that I can respect even though I don't always
agree with them. At other times, unfortunately, you have written like a troll.

As far as I can tell, you have the ability to make interesting contributions
to the chess newgroups, and I hope that you will recognise that most readers
here--I hope--should appreciate those posts more than your trolling posts.
Thanks in advance.

--Nick

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
igy.com...
Thanks. Also for whatever it's worth: I choose the Masked Bishop moniker
because I was going to use an alias on the usenet regardless, and it seemed
more amusing (and honest) to use one that's so obviously silly, rather than
just make up a name or use the word "mail" backwards.

"The Masked Bishop", I can understand your reasoning.

'Bourbaki' is a well-known pseudonym for a group of mathematicians.
It does not refer to any known living individual person.
Accordingly, no one (apart from the disturbed Wlodzimierz ("I have never
insulted anyone") Holsztynski) should feel defamed by my usage of it.

My reasons for using an alias are not because I'm some secret insider in the
US Chess community, but because I think the Usenet is a pretty lawless, wild
place, and I believe it pays to protect one's identity from people one
doesn't, and can't, know.

Sherlock Holmes: 'Excellence at chess is one mark of a scheming mind.'
--Arthur Conan Doyle (The Adventure of the Retired Colourman)

I prefer to accept other writers here on their own terms as much as I honestly
can. To me, you are essentially represented only by whatever you write here.
You have the write to decide how much you are willing to reveal about yourself
personally. (I feel that Sam Sloan reveals too much about himself personally,
but I don't have to read all of it.)

When a writer makes a personal claim, my acceptance of it depends on its
plausibility and the evidence provided to support it. If someone claims to
have a licence to drive an automobile, then I would tend to accept it without
asking for any supporting evidence. If someone claims to be a driver for a
Formula 1 racing team, then I would have to ask for one's supporting evidence.

When recently in the thread, "Sportsmanship and pre-arranged results",
I responded to Mike Murray's trolling by writing simply that I am stronger
than an 'ordinary club player' (for instance, USCF class C) at chess, Mike
Murray apparently accused me, in effect, of making a boast. In my view,
my claim was hardly extraordinary, and I have no more need to prove it than
I should have to prove that I have a safe record for driving an automobile.

Someone else can disagree with me on nearly any subject without losing my
personal respect if one does it in an intellectually honest way. I like to
assume that other writers here are being honest with me until I have reason
to believe otherwise. I do take exception to those writers who have lied
to me or about me, and I tend not to trust or to respect them any more.

As I am only human, occasionally I do make mistakes (such as a few misspellings
of other writers' names here), but I attempt to correct those mistakes about
as soon as I become aware of them, even if I have not yet been asked to do so.

"The Masked Bishop", I have to say that your writings here seem to represent
two distinct personalities. Sometimes you have written evidently thoughtful
posts with interesting points that I can respect even though I don't always
agree with them. At other times, unfortunately, you have written like a troll.

As far as I can tell, you have the ability to make interesting contributions
to the chess newsgroups, and I hope that you will recognise that most readers
here--I hope--should appreciate those posts more than your trolling posts.
Thanks in advance.

--Nick

Sometimes you have written evidently thoughtful
posts with interesting points that I can respect even though I don't always
agree with them. At other times, unfortunately, you have written like a
troll.

Well, you know, we have our good days, and we have our bad days...besides,
what's a little trolling among friends? This place needs the occasional
gigging, especially with this new influx of toffee-nosed Brits harumphing
all over the board...

TMB

On 8 Jan 2004 13:12:40 -0800, (Nick) wrote:

You have the write to decide how much you are willing to reveal about yourself
personally.

Does Nick believe the poster to be only a read, but a thinking read?
Well, nobody would ever believe Nick ignorantly confused "write" and
"right".... Never? .....Well, hardly ever. Probably just the spell
checker and fast typing led him astray.

Evidently, Nick has yet to learn that behaving like a pompous ass and
picking at such finger-fehlers on the part of other posters leaves him
open to similar petty corrections.

(For the record, Nick made a fuss over a similar error in an earlier
post by Mike Murray.)

When recently in the thread, "Sportsmanship and pre-arranged results",
I responded to Mike Murray's trolling by writing simply that I am stronger
than an 'ordinary club player' (for instance, USCF class C) at chess, Mike
Murray apparently accused me, in effect, of making a boast. In my view,
my claim was hardly extraordinary, and I have no more need to prove it than
I should have to prove that I have a safe record for driving an automobile.

Ahhh, Nick, ya saves up yer grudges, all the hurts and slights and
bitterness, the way an old pinch-penny bags his coin, pulling 'em out
late at night, piling 'em up in stacks, starin' at 'em, takin' yer
comfort from 'em.

For the record, here's an extract from our referenced "dialog":

What's manifest to Mike Murray may not be manifest to persons with a
greater understanding of chess and/or football.

This may well be true, but I submit few are convinced Nick fills either
of these roles.

As for chess, Mike Murray could have no knowledge of my playing strength.I
don't know Mike Murray's USCF rating .... Yet I doubt that I should much
to fear from any ordinary 'club player'.

But, don't you think, Nick, to a C or D player, your statement would
seem a wee bit boastful? If you were strutting a class B rating as
evidence of the profundity of your chess understanding, why not just
say so? And wouldn't you think it prudent to know a person's rating
before claiming a "greater understanding of chess" than that person?
I'm assuming from context and tone that you included yourself among
those possessing such an understanding.

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message igy.com...
Mail, I don't really care. This thread was nominally about a lawsuit, but
like all things RGCP, it's turned into a meta-thread: posting about posters.
Yawn.

TMB

Yawn? Indeed! But, that's what RGCP is all about.

You were here when Phil went away with legal threats to Neil. Then
comes Nick. Neil had doubts of course about this Nick guy. Then Phil
pops up again. Now there are two of them calling you a troll.

What about the dull tool Trollsby who popped up again too. Well, he is
distinct and not to worry, dull tools are very hard to sharpen at this
age and time.

Lance

(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
On 8 Jan 2004 08:37:05 -0800, (Liam Too) wrote:

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message news:6K0Lb.88386
So Lance.....

Is the "real" Liam really dead, as suspected by several of our beloved RGCP
posters?

Regards, Matt

Matt,

At least his domain, , is dead in this RGCP neck of the
woods. However, I've seen him post here under a different domain a
month ago.

Lance

was always a fake address.

Sam Sloan

Yep, and he kept on hiding by that fake address and didn't even know
that most RGCPians know his real name.

Lance Smith