See, here I was sailing away on the Spanish main when this John Mcnab
fellow comes up to me & sez Capt. Micky - "I honourably request the
relievement of your command". Sez I to him, over my dead body squire,
devil take the hindemost & your wife is sharkfood too, whereapon upstart
John attempted a blow upon my person. Luckily one of my loyal
Pole\Russki\Latvian men deflected the blow & the malcontent was quickly
subdued & bound. After the intake of much beer, vodka, wine - seafood
grill & kava - it was elected to throw Mcnab, his wife (who wasn't worth
raping, & their boring 'kinder' fully trussed, to their death in the
Pacific Ocean, in which we were now at sea) Capt's. log - oh y'know, you
fill in the details - uh?!..

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:17:04 +1100, michael adams
wrote:

See, here I was sailing away on the Spanish main...

Not funny. Some things you don't joke about.

You're a sick ****!


"michael adams" wrote in message
...
See, here I was sailing away on the Spanish main when this John Mcnab
fellow comes up to me & sez Capt. Micky - "I honourably request the
relievement of your command". Sez I to him, over my dead body squire,
devil take the hindemost & your wife is sharkfood too, whereapon upstart
John attempted a blow upon my person. Luckily one of my loyal
Pole\Russki\Latvian men deflected the blow & the malcontent was quickly
subdued & bound. After the intake of much beer, vodka, wine - seafood
grill & kava - it was elected to throw Mcnab, his wife (who wasn't worth
raping, & their boring 'kinder' fully trussed, to their death in the
Pacific Ocean, in which we were now at sea) Capt's. log - oh y'know, you
fill in the details - uh?!..

Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:17:04 +1100, michael adams
wrote:
See, here I was sailing away on the Spanish main...

Not funny. Some things you don't joke about.

"(Michael Adams) seems a 'reasonably literate reader' to me."
--Mike Murray (13 January 2004)

On 21 Feb 2004 14:56:56 -0800, (Nick) wrote:

Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:17:04 +1100, michael adams
wrote:
See, here I was sailing away on the Spanish main...

Not funny. Some things you don't joke about.

"(Michael Adams) seems a 'reasonably literate reader' to me."
--Mike Murray (13 January 2004)

Evidently, Nick confuses literacy and propriety.

Mike Murray wrote:
(Nick) wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
michael adams wrote about John Macnab:
See, here I was sailing away on the Spanish main...

Not funny. Some things you don't joke about.

"(Michael Adams) seems a 'reasonably literate reader' to me."
--Mike Murray (13 January 2004)

Evidently, Nick confuses literacy and propriety.

As far as I know, I doubt that John Macnab would agree at all with
Mike Murray that Michael Adams 'seems a reasonably literate reader'.

Let's examine the context of what Mike Murray originally wrote.
Here's what Mike Murray wrote in his original post in the thread,
"Legal threats from Polgar and Truong" (13 January 2004), which has
several other examples of Mike Murray's trolling:

Mike Murray wrote (13 January 2004) at me:
Can verbal correction of a trolling buffoon (i.e., one 'Nick') properly
be termed 'insolence'? Better to reserve the word for affronts to the
respected.

(My responses are appearing for the first time, here in this thread.)

A "trolling buffoon" would be an accurate self-description of Mike Murray.
With his characteristic dishonesty, Mike Murray again has *falsely* implied
that my writings here are not respected by any readers.

Here are some comments about my writings here from a broad variety of readers:

Jerome Bibuld:
"The general tenor of your posts has been so heartwarmingly human and
winningly intelligent."

Bill Brock:
"Bravo. I concur with all your major points."

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

Mark Houlsby:
"Nick's post is typically lucid and balanced."

Phil Innes:
"Nick, you are a fair writer."

John Macnab:
"Great story! Thanks."

Matt Nemmers:
"I believe you're an intelligent individual and I respect your opinions."

Susan Polgar:
"Nick, Thank you....I am glad to see posters like you."

Simon Spivack:
"Your posts are amongst the most rewarding in RGCM, even though we do
differ on some things."

Larry Tapper:
"I've been enjoying your scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."

Then Mike Murray wrote (13 January 2004) at me:
At any rate, why attack Mr. (Michael) Adams?

Indeed, why should Michael Adams *not* be above criticism (sarcasm intended)?

Evidently, he believed the snipping (Mike Murray's extreme snipping of
my posts in the thread, 'Legal threats from Polgar and Truong') to be
honest, the characterization (Mike Murray's usual ad hominem nonsense)
of the anonymous Nick to be accurate (given that we know him only
through his self-revelations in these forums) and, as it were, pointed.

I don't know and I don't care about exactly what Michael Adams 'believed'.

For the record, however, in his post (13 January 2004) in the thread
'Legal threats from Polgar and Truong', Michael Adams did *not* write
*any words* about Mike Murray's "snipping to be honest" or Mike Murray's
"characterization of the anonymous Nick to be accurate..."

In short, Mike Murray seems to be placing his own words in the mouth of
Michael Adams, who might have agreed with them but who did not express them.

Here's the complete original text of Michael Adams's post (13 January 2004):
"Jeez, I so much disagree with (Mark) HOULSBY - the troll, & where does
this farty Nick, in effect FART himself to kingdom come? for I care nothing
for their vanity. This Mike Murraymint for example, I never did see him say
a bad word, but all the time this dumb Nicky fart accuse him of the insolence."

Then Mike Murray wrote in his praise of Michael Adams and his post (above):
(Michael Adams) Seems a 'reasonably literate reader' to me.

On the other hand, 'The Masked Bishop' wrote in his response to the
same Michael Adams post (which Mike Murray praised) in that same thread:

"ESL (English as a Second Language) classes are offered at a community
college near you."
--'The Masked Bishop' (13 January 2004, writing to Michael Adams)

"Excuse me, I meant special education classes, which you obviously are
more in need of."
--'The Masked Bishop' (15 January 2004, writing to Michael Adams)

Evidently, 'The Masked Bishop' disagreed with what Michael Adams wrote and
with Mike Murray's judgement that Michael Adams "seems a 'reasonably literate
reader'.

As far as I can tell, Mike Murray's evident intention in writing his post of
13 January 2004 in the thread, 'Legal threats from Polgar and Truong',
was to contend that Michael Adams was not only a 'reasonably literate reader'
but also a deservedly more respected writer (than I am) in the chess newgroups,
and hence Michael Adams would qualify as a worthy supporter of Mike Murray's
trolling of me.

Only the most inexperienced, ignorant, gullible, or nearly illiterate readers
here, however, should be deceived by Mike Murray's attempts at trolling me.

The 'bottom line' here is that Michael Adams is a troll and Mike Murray
is a troll. And trolls tend to like to encourage and to feed one another.

--Nick

Mike Murray wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:17:04 +1100, michael adams
wrote:

See, here I was sailing away on the Spanish main...

Not funny. Some things you don't joke about.


Sez your 'mil' (mother in law) - fcuk fcuk fcuky fcuk. Mikey!..

Nick wrote:

Mike Murray wrote:
(Nick) wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
michael adams wrote about John Macnab:
See, here I was sailing away on the Spanish main...

Not funny. Some things you don't joke about.

"(Michael Adams) seems a 'reasonably literate reader' to me."
--Mike Murray (13 January 2004)

Evidently, Nick confuses literacy and propriety.

As far as I know, I doubt that John Macnab would agree at all with
Mike Murray that Michael Adams 'seems a reasonably literate reader'.

Oooh yeah. Let's all have a little bit of stoopid diviseveness, so we
can allow 5th column Nick in with his crapulous attempts at 'spin'. Oooh
yeah. That Micky Adams has nooo.. what compre hen hen - shion
whatsoever, none whatsoever sez I Nick the big browther-beatter of rgcm,
mark my words! - nooo compro. at all, none whatever group. & besides
he's critical of my brainwashed position on affairs, can't have that
group can we? That Michael Adams is worse than Hitler, group, it's a
fact.




Let's examine the context of what Mike Murray originally wrote.

Let's not even bother our time-starved selves, however, on 2nd pauncees
- why not, we are free born peoples are we not? Besides, Big Trollfart
Nick is sometimes good value - :P..

Here's what Mike Murray wrote in his original post in the thread,
"Legal threats from Polgar and Truong" (13 January 2004), which has
several other examples of Mike Murray's trolling:

Mike Murray wrote (13 January 2004) at me:
Can verbal correction of a trolling buffoon (i.e., one 'Nick') properly
be termed 'insolence'? Better to reserve the word for affronts to the
respected.

(My responses are appearing for the first time, here in this thread.)

A "trolling buffoon" would be an accurate self-description of Mike Murray.
With his characteristic dishonesty, Mike Murray again has *falsely* implied
that my writings here are not respected by any readers.

Here are some comments about my writings here from a broad variety of readers:

wellcome snip


Then Mike Murray wrote (13 January 2004) at me:
At any rate, why attack Mr. (Michael) Adams?

Indeed, why should Michael Adams *not* be above criticism (sarcasm intended)?

Evidently, he believed the snipping (Mike Murray's extreme snipping of
my posts in the thread, 'Legal threats from Polgar and Truong') to be
honest, the characterization (Mike Murray's usual ad hominem nonsense)
of the anonymous Nick to be accurate (given that we know him only
through his self-revelations in these forums) and, as it were, pointed.

I don't know and I don't care about exactly what Michael Adams 'believed'.

For the record, however, in his post (13 January 2004) in the thread
'Legal threats from Polgar and Truong', Michael Adams did *not* write
*any words* about Mike Murray's "snipping to be honest" or Mike Murray's
"characterization of the anonymous Nick to be accurate..."

In short, Mike Murray seems to be placing his own words in the mouth of
Michael Adams, who might have agreed with them but who did not express them.

Here's the complete original text of Michael Adams's post (13 January 2004):
"Jeez, I so much disagree with (Mark) HOULSBY - the troll, & where does
this farty Nick, in effect FART himself to kingdom come? for I care nothing
for their vanity. This Mike Murraymint for example, I never did see him say
a bad word, but all the time this dumb Nicky fart accuse him of the insolence."

Then Mike Murray wrote in his praise of Michael Adams and his post (above):
(Michael Adams) Seems a 'reasonably literate reader' to me.

On the other hand, 'The Masked Bishop' wrote in his response to the
same Michael Adams post (which Mike Murray praised) in that same thread:

"ESL (English as a Second Language) classes are offered at a community
college near you."
--'The Masked Bishop' (13 January 2004, writing to Michael Adams)

"Excuse me, I meant special education classes, which you obviously are
more in need of."
--'The Masked Bishop' (15 January 2004, writing to Michael Adams)

Evidently, 'The Masked Bishop' disagreed with what Michael Adams wrote and
with Mike Murray's judgement that Michael Adams "seems a 'reasonably literate
reader'.

As far as I can tell, Mike Murray's evident intention in writing his post of
13 January 2004 in the thread, 'Legal threats from Polgar and Truong',
was to contend that Michael Adams was not only a 'reasonably literate reader'
but also a deservedly more respected writer (than I am) in the chess newgroups,
and hence Michael Adams would qualify as a worthy supporter of Mike Murray's
trolling of me.

Only the most inexperienced, ignorant, gullible, or nearly illiterate readers
here, however, should be deceived by Mike Murray's attempts at trolling me.

You miss the point trollfart..


The 'bottom line' here is that Michael Adams is a troll and Mike Murray
is a troll.

Honestly trollfart (Nick), you really need do something about your
treacherous 5th col. tendancies, try to convince me at least you are
sincere in reforming your traiterous attitude & I'll refrain from
uncalled criticism, which as I'm sure you kapeesh is not the same thing
as trolling. All the best.

Mick..

And trolls tend to like to encourage and to feed one another.

--Nick aka (Big Chief Tr-------t)..

On 22 Feb 2004 20:52:57 -0800, (Nick) wrote:

(In which Nick Borebackatus reached for the other arrow in his quiver,
his famous ego stroke list, the Reader's Digest version of all the
nice things people have said about him.)

(My responses are appearing for the first time, here in this thread.)

Not quit true, Nick, these responses have appeared all over the
newsgroup, over and over.. You trot them out, oh, maybe every couple
weeks.

A "trolling buffoon" would be an accurate self-description of Mike Murray.

(I had called Nick a "trolling buffoon". Overly generous, I realize,
but I was trying to be nice.)

With his characteristic dishonesty, Mike Murray again has *falsely* implied
that my writings here are not respected by any readers.

"Writings"? How modest! Nick, when do you plan on ratcheting it up
to "works"?

Be that as it may, *some* readers may respect one or more opinions
even of a "trolling buffoon". So you're not totally out of luck.
Every buffoon has its day. A pompous gasbag may float above the
meadow on a calm spring afternoon.

Most of your references, most of which I snipped again, as an
anti-pollution measure, demonstrate that someone agreed with, or at
least liked, *one* or more of your posts. Someone who posts as often
as you do and who evidently spends as much time googling as you do, is
*bound* to say something interesting once in a while.

snip of some the nice things said about Nick Borebackatus

But, I have some time on my hands, so let's deconstruct this next one
a wee bit, shall we?

Susan Polgar:
"Nick, Thank you....I am glad to see posters like you."

Now, this little snippet might tempt the unwary reader into believing
that GM Polgar had reviewed the whole corpus of Nick's newsgroup
"writings", finding him refreshing and informative. In fact, there is
no evidence that she read more than this single post. She had been
rudely attacked by a poster with a reputation for caddishness, and
Nick directed the following post to Polgar:

Fortunately, you have not been reading some of LeModernCaveman's
recent postsabout you with regard to your divorce, ... I shall not reproduce
here what "LeModernCaveman" wrote
about you, but you should know that many readers here were quite
offended by LeModernCaveman's gratuitous insults and his
evident personal malice toward you. In many of his recent comments
about you, "LeModernCaveman" has been far from courteous, and I
expect that other writers here should be ready to corroborate the
truth of that statement about him.

The reader may question whether Nick successfully navigated the
boundaries between gallantry and
tattling-with-shameless-attempt-to-curry-favor, but it *is* clear that
GM Polgar's comment was more akin to a thank-you note than to an
evaluation of Nick's many "writings".

Other posters have characterized Nick as an outright liar, but I see
him more as a propagandist or ad-man (in the service of himself, of
course), as the above example demonstrates.


On the other hand, 'The Masked Bishop' wrote in his response to the
same Michael Adams post (which Mike Murray praised) in that same thread:

"ESL (English as a Second Language) classes are offered at a community
college near you."
--'The Masked Bishop' (13 January 2004, writing to Michael Adams)

"Excuse me, I meant special education classes, which you obviously are
more in need of."
--'The Masked Bishop' (15 January 2004, writing to Michael Adams)

Evidently, 'The Masked Bishop' disagreed with what Michael Adams wrote and
with Mike Murray's judgement that Michael Adams "seems a 'reasonably literate
reader'.

I respect His Excellency's opinions, even when they differ from my
own, all the more so because they are expressed in a pithy line or
two, not in endless paragraphs of Borebackatus twaddle.

..
(In which Nick Borebackatus reached for the other arrow in his quiver,
his famous ego stroke list, the Reader's Digest version of all the
nice things people have said about him.)


Other posters have characterized Nick as an outright liar, but I see
him more as a propagandist or ad-man (in the service of himself, of
course)


If you look more closely, you will see the answer for yourself: Nick-the-liar
always presents these "selected," favorable snippetts he has collected over
time, as if they were a random sample of feedback, *deliberately* ommitting any
negative comments by a variety of posters, whose names exactly match his
so-called "trolls" list, by no small coincidence.
This, my friends, is called lying. Deception. Dishonesty. A gasbag?
Perhaps. A pompous buffoon? Certainly. But even a pompous buffoon might at
least manage a to steer clear of outright deceptions and lies. "Borebacktatus
twaddle" is not merely boring, it is lowdown, disgusting stuff.




Two different opinions seem to vie here, regarding the root cause of Mickey
Adams' language peculiarities: illiteracy vs. drunkenness. I vote for the
latter, but then
again, he may just have a very strong accent, aggravated by a little alchohol
and fast typing.
OTOH, he *could* be both illiterate *and* drunk ! :-)





(I had called Nick a "trolling buffoon". Overly generous, I realize,
but I was trying to be nice.)


Nick-the-liar is not exactly a troll. He calls everyone else a troll, but we
need to remember that true trolls are fairly rare, and mainly found underneath
bridges.



Susan Polgar:
"Nick, Thank you....I am glad to see posters like you."

Now, this little snippet might tempt the unwary reader into believing
that GM Polgar had reviewed the


Queen's Knight odds to any man.....


But I never took my hand off....