A SERIOUS ACCUSATION

He posts trash about people then accuses them of writing it about themselves.
Phil Innes


Dear Phil,

You are making a very serious accusation against Neil Brennen.

To wit: you are saying that he posted trash that some might
think came from Sam Sloan and then returned in his actual person to ask
whether the stuff came from Mr. Sloan.

Frankly, that goes beyond sneaky; it puts a person beyond the pale.

If your charge is true, then other little shrouded mysteries around
here may begin to lift. The issue is whether your charge is true.

I await Mr. Brennen's response and, perhaps we both hope, his
outright denial.

One doesn't want to think that kind of slime is true about someone
who, after all, entertains many of the same interests and concerns as
we do.

wrote:
A SERIOUS ACCUSATION

He posts trash about people then accuses them of writing it about themselves.
Phil Innes


Dear Phil,

You are making a very serious accusation against Neil Brennen.

To wit: you are saying that he posted trash that some might
think came from Sam Sloan and then returned in his actual person to ask
whether the stuff came from Mr. Sloan.

Frankly, that goes beyond sneaky; it puts a person beyond the pale.

If your charge is true, then other little shrouded mysteries around
here may begin to lift. The issue is whether your charge is true.

I await Mr. Brennen's response and, perhaps we both hope, his
outright denial.

Larry, I've gotten used to Philth Innes manufacturing all kinds of
trash about me. This latest is just another junker coming off his
Brattleboro assembly line. It deserves as much contempt as all the
others before it.

Since Philth will no doubt rant the above is not an answer to you, here
it is again, worded a little more directly: I did not do what you
interpret Innes as claiming I did.

One doesn't want to think that kind of slime is true about someone
who, after all, entertains many of the same interests and concerns as
we do.

Chess One wrote:
Sure. You posted it right he

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...did=2010 3784

Note your ID 68.84.120.191

You did not use a screen name.

You then reposted what you wrote to this group under Salamalaikum
from kalash velley Chitral and added the comment

"Did Sloan write this? It sounds like someone is mocking him."

All and all a typical sneaky and despicable act, so characteristic of
Neil Brennen.

He posts trash about people then accuses them of writing it about
themselves. Phil Innes

Example?

"The Histerian" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:
Sure. You posted it right he

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...did=2010 3784

Note your ID 68.84.120.191

You did not use a screen name.

You then reposted what you wrote to this group under Salamalaikum
from kalash velley Chitral and added the comment

"Did Sloan write this? It sounds like someone is mocking him."

All and all a typical sneaky and despicable act, so characteristic of
Neil Brennen.

He posts trash about people then accuses them of writing it about
themselves. Phil Innes

Example?


False posts about chess players using false nickname. they named you Vandal.
You already forgot it?

On 24 Aug 2005 08:28:21 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

knucmo wrote:
I just noticed some more errors on the Karpov article (a featured
article nonetheless!) :

1. Says that Korchnoi offered to play under the flag of the Jolly
Roger after being declined by Switzerland. That is what it says on
Wikipedia, when I reckon it to be Stean and Keene persuading Korchnoi
to play under the flag after being declined by Netherlands (he hadn't
lived there long enough).

Skimming through "Persona Non Grata" (aka "Anti-Chess") by Kortchnoi
and Cavallaro, I did not find anything about the Jolly Roger, but page
27 indicates it was the Swiss flag that the Soviets objected to, not
the Dutch, on grounds that Kortchnoi had not lived in Switzerland a
full year yet.

I remember reading that he made this offer in what seemed to me to be
a sarcastic vein. Unfortunately, I read it a long time ago and can't
remember where.

I found several errors in the Wikipedia article about Bobby Fischer. I
simply posted corrections.

That is the strength of Wikipedia. Errors can be noticed and corrected
immediately, unlike in a traditional encyclopedia like Encyclopedia
Britannica where errors stay there for time eternity.

In the Bobby Fischer article, it stated that by winning the 1956 US
Junior Championship, Fischer qualified to the US Championship. That
was untrue of course and I removed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer

On- the other hand, an administrator of Wikipedia removed one of the
changes I made. The article stated:

"Fischer spent much time at Collins's house, and some have
described Collins as a father figure for Fischer. However, Fischer was
already stronger than Collins when they first met, so it is unlikely
that Collins ever taught him anything about chess."

I wrote he second sentence but not the first. That was removed on the
grounds of "needs a source".


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

However, I am the source. I know Fischer and I know that Fischer says
that Collins never taught him anything. Fischer first met Collins in
June 1956. Fischer was already a master and was stronger than Collins.
Fischer won the US Junior Chess Championship one month later.

After Fischer objected to the book "My Seven Prodigies" in which
Collins implied that he had been one of Bobby's teachers, Colins never
again claimed that he had taught Fischer anything.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
I wrote he second sentence but not the first. That was removed on the
grounds of "needs a source".


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

However, I am the source. I know Fischer and I know that Fischer says
that Collins never taught him anything. Fischer first met Collins in
June 1956. Fischer was already a master and was stronger than Collins.
Fischer won the US Junior Chess Championship one month later.

Yes, of course you're the source. Why wouldn't they believe you?
Everyone knows Sam Sloan sports an umblemished record of staunch
journalistic integrity -- why wouldn't they just take his word for it?

But then, maybe Peter Leko works for them.