Goran Tomic wrote:
"The Histerian" wrote in message
oups.com...
I would like Mr. Innes to
explain, in English if he is able, and with the help of a translator if
he is not, why he stated the following in a Shakespeare newsgroup:

"My qualifications for saying so is [sic] that I was nearly an
international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, [a person], who used to post here before
splitting, so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear."

Once again, we ask Mr. Innes for a factual reference - a FIDE/BCF/USCF
rating list, for instance - for his claim to be rated 2450. If he wrote
truthfully, it should be easy for him to produce documentation.


I think that you don't deserve any explanation. The first reason is because
you and Mr. Kingston were cached like two miserable thieves with false posts
under false nicknames in Wikipedia.

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Mike,
I ment to type something and my wife called me to go to bed. Not
intentional.

This was reposted by someone in the FIDE news group. It is well said
and I would hope that anyone with a penchant for history would
recognize it's merit.
Take care Mike, Sorry for the mispost.
Rob

"Date: 1999/07/14
To: newsgroup

Subj: Eliminate the RUDE DUDES from USCF
Date: 7/14/99 3:30:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: DDillinger

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dillinger sounds O F F !

I'm not going to take it any more . . .We need to eradicate the
gadflies from
USCF politics. I don't have to tell you who they are. According to
Webster's
Dictionary, a gadfly is an intentionally annoying person who stimulates
or
provokes others especially by persistent irritating criticism.

Harsh criticism is one thing, but gadflies have a few traits that make
them
standout

I.) Name calling, such as: scum bags, pimps, low life scumbags,
crooks,
thieves, fools, criminals and even misanthropes.

II.) Serious accusations on criminal acts, gross mismanagement and
other
acts of malfeasance in office; made in a public forum and/or mass mail
outs.
Accusations so serious, that the more proper forum would be to file
complaints
at the State Attorney's office, or initiate the procedures to have the
subjects
of these complaints removed from office. In each of these, there would
be
investigation, a process of discovery; where the accused would have the
right
to defend himself.
* * * * *
I am not a big Wheel in Chess organization, Just one of the average
chess
organizers working in my region for chess. Like most, we just donot
have
access to records that would prove of disprove the accusations. . . and
that
appears to suit the gadflies just fine.

In fact by ignoring the appropriate forums for such serious discourse,
these
gadflies do not seek majority resolution; but rather their ONLY intent
is to
adopt a form of McCarthyism ( named after Senator Joe McCarthy in the
1950's)
.. . . to blacken the reputation of any who disagree.

All of those who criticize the gadflies' caustic remarks, are said to
be
involved in a conspiracy. Indeed this conspiracy must be vast to
involve so
many persons of good will from so many different areas of the country.

The whole chess community in every region pays a price for this
negative
behavior.

1.) The PATTERN of this abrasive rhetoric TURNS US OFF in
consideration of
the very issues being advocated . . . Perhaps there MAY be merit at
the core, but we tend to dismiss it due to the indiscretion of the
messenger.

2.) Anyone can make mistakes, as they advocate their point of view; but
one
give away for the gadfly; is that even if he is confronted with obvious
evidence that he has make some factual error ( which good faith should
prompt
him to address and correct). The gadfly doesn't blink but just goes on
to the
next accusation.

3.) Of all the current members of the Executive Board standing for
re-election this year (1999), All are not running again ( except one)
They have had
enough, and are stepping down. I feel this is a corollary effect of
the nature
and style of this long term negative behavior . . . not just
opposition, but a
steady stream of McCarthyism that drives talented people across the
nation to
withdraw from service to the national chess movement. I have received
feed
back and personally seen examples of this.

4.) THIS AFFECTS SPONSORSHIP . . . not only for what is in place now,
but
potential sponsorship, in two ways.
a.) Some of these very same talented volunteers that withdraw from
USCF
national activities, are influential people ( CEO's, etc.) in their
companies,
and they are less inclined to recommend business sponsorship
involvement in the
current hostile climate.
b.) And/or other business people that are not chess informed, seeing
the
surface publicity of such internal turmoil. . . back off . . . and
perhaps stay
turned off for a good while.

Investigations, reprimands, and putting one person on a 90 probation,
are
after the fact stop gap measures. They drain much of our time that we
could
devote more directly to positive work.

All of us need to be proactive about this . . . When you see a
budding
McCarthy, take him aside help the poor guy with his social
skills. Get
effective recall procedures at the local level of chess
organization.

Often these millionaire chess oligarchs are so entrenched in
the power
structure, that they are hard to get rid of. . . and even harder to
retrain in civil
discourse.

Some people sill mistakenly say that "us gadfly swatters" want to
stifle ideas
of criticism . . . It is NOT the core ideas that bother us, it is the
pattern
of unethical abrasive attacks that detract from real solutions being
hammered
out in a consensus

Once in a while, one of these ranting oligarchs, happens to advocate
a point
of view that most would approve of . . . but their personal attack
dog
persona is still wrong. . . and indeed hamper cooperation needed to do
worthy
chess projects. There CAN be people of good will on both sides of an
issue.

In conclusion -- no one could say it better than this quote from FRED
CRAMER in the August, 1963 issue of Chess Life, page 184 "PERSONAL
HOSTILITY, INTENDED OR SUBCONSCIOUS, OBVIOUS OR CLEVERLY DISGUISED,
MUST BE VENTED ON COUCHES AND NOT ON PRINTED PAGES. WRITTEN BRICKBATS,
ARE STILL BRICKBATS; WORSE THEY ARE BAD BUSINESS, BAD MORALLY, AND VERY
BAD ORGANIZATIONALLY. NO LESSON IN OUR HISTORY IS CLEARER."

I have mentioned no names here. If the shoe fits . . . you know what
to do.
It is our duty to show these "Rude Dudes" the error of their ways, if
they are
not retrainable, then we need to replace them.

We have the fellowship of chess in common. It is a noble cause . . .
Let us
move forward with diverse ideas but in harmony and mutual respect. AND
elect
those with the courage of their convictions, A N D the people skills
to
hammer out a consensus, moving forward.

Daren Dillinger, USCF voting member"








Mike Murray wrote:
On 13 Aug 2005 21:01:24 -0700, "Rob" wrote:

Mike Murray wrote:
On 13 Aug 2005 19:24:50 -0700, "The Hysterectian"
wrote:

Hey, Rob, you changed my post while making it look like you were
quoting me. That's a Usenet no-no. I didn't change the handle of
"The Historian". I'm sarcastic enough at times without the "help".

:-)

Mike,
I ment to type something and my wife called me to go to bed. Not
intentional.

This was reposted by someone in the FIDE news group. It is well said
and I would hope that anyone with a penchant for history would
recognize it's merit.
Take care Mike, Sorry for the mispost.
Rob

"Date: 1999/07/14
To: newsgroup

Subj: Eliminate the RUDE DUDES from USCF
Date: 7/14/99 3:30:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: DDillinger

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dillinger sounds O F F !

I'm not going to take it any more . . .We need to eradicate the
gadflies from
USCF politics. I don't have to tell you who they are. According to
Webster's
Dictionary, a gadfly is an intentionally annoying person who stimulates
or
provokes others especially by persistent irritating criticism.

Harsh criticism is one thing, but gadflies have a few traits that make
them
standout

I.) Name calling, such as: scum bags, pimps, low life scumbags,
crooks,
thieves, fools, criminals and even misanthropes.

II.) Serious accusations on criminal acts, gross mismanagement and
other
acts of malfeasance in office; made in a public forum and/or mass mail
outs.
Accusations so serious, that the more proper forum would be to file
complaints
at the State Attorney's office, or initiate the procedures to have the
subjects
of these complaints removed from office. In each of these, there would
be
investigation, a process of discovery; where the accused would have the
right
to defend himself.
* * * * *
I am not a big Wheel in Chess organization, Just one of the average
chess
organizers working in my region for chess. Like most, we just donot
have
access to records that would prove of disprove the accusations. . . and
that
appears to suit the gadflies just fine.

In fact by ignoring the appropriate forums for such serious discourse,
these
gadflies do not seek majority resolution; but rather their ONLY intent
is to
adopt a form of McCarthyism ( named after Senator Joe McCarthy in the
1950's)
.. . . to blacken the reputation of any who disagree.

All of those who criticize the gadflies' caustic remarks, are said to
be
involved in a conspiracy. Indeed this conspiracy must be vast to
involve so
many persons of good will from so many different areas of the country.

The whole chess community in every region pays a price for this
negative
behavior.

1.) The PATTERN of this abrasive rhetoric TURNS US OFF in
consideration of
the very issues being advocated . . . Perhaps there MAY be merit at
the core, but we tend to dismiss it due to the indiscretion of the
messenger.

2.) Anyone can make mistakes, as they advocate their point of view; but
one
give away for the gadfly; is that even if he is confronted with obvious
evidence that he has make some factual error ( which good faith should
prompt
him to address and correct). The gadfly doesn't blink but just goes on
to the
next accusation.

3.) Of all the current members of the Executive Board standing for
re-election this year (1999), All are not running again ( except one)
They have had
enough, and are stepping down. I feel this is a corollary effect of
the nature
and style of this long term negative behavior . . . not just
opposition, but a
steady stream of McCarthyism that drives talented people across the
nation to
withdraw from service to the national chess movement. I have received
feed
back and personally seen examples of this.

4.) THIS AFFECTS SPONSORSHIP . . . not only for what is in place now,
but
potential sponsorship, in two ways.
a.) Some of these very same talented volunteers that withdraw from
USCF
national activities, are influential people ( CEO's, etc.) in their
companies,
and they are less inclined to recommend business sponsorship
involvement in the
current hostile climate.
b.) And/or other business people that are not chess informed, seeing
the
surface publicity of such internal turmoil. . . back off . . . and
perhaps stay
turned off for a good while.

Investigations, reprimands, and putting one person on a 90 probation,
are
after the fact stop gap measures. They drain much of our time that we
could
devote more directly to positive work.

All of us need to be proactive about this . . . When you see a
budding
McCarthy, take him aside help the poor guy with his social
skills. Get
effective recall procedures at the local level of chess
organization.

Often these millionaire chess oligarchs are so entrenched in
the power
structure, that they are hard to get rid of. . . and even harder to
retrain in civil
discourse.

Some people sill mistakenly say that "us gadfly swatters" want to
stifle ideas
of criticism . . . It is NOT the core ideas that bother us, it is the
pattern
of unethical abrasive attacks that detract from real solutions being
hammered
out in a consensus

Once in a while, one of these ranting oligarchs, happens to advocate
a point
of view that most would approve of . . . but their personal attack
dog
persona is still wrong. . . and indeed hamper cooperation needed to do
worthy
chess projects. There CAN be people of good will on both sides of an
issue.

In conclusion -- no one could say it better than this quote from FRED
CRAMER in the August, 1963 issue of Chess Life, page 184 "PERSONAL
HOSTILITY, INTENDED OR SUBCONSCIOUS, OBVIOUS OR CLEVERLY DISGUISED,
MUST BE VENTED ON COUCHES AND NOT ON PRINTED PAGES. WRITTEN BRICKBATS,
ARE STILL BRICKBATS; WORSE THEY ARE BAD BUSINESS, BAD MORALLY, AND VERY
BAD ORGANIZATIONALLY. NO LESSON IN OUR HISTORY IS CLEARER."

I have mentioned no names here. If the shoe fits . . . you know what
to do.
It is our duty to show these "Rude Dudes" the error of their ways, if
they are
not retrainable, then we need to replace them.

We have the fellowship of chess in common. It is a noble cause . . .
Let us
move forward with diverse ideas but in harmony and mutual respect. AND
elect
those with the courage of their convictions, A N D the people skills
to
hammer out a consensus, moving forward.

Daren Dillinger, USCF voting member"








Mike Murray wrote:
On 13 Aug 2005 21:01:24 -0700, "Rob" wrote:

Mike Murray wrote:
On 13 Aug 2005 19:24:50 -0700, "The Hysterectian"
wrote:

Hey, Rob, you changed my post while making it look like you were
quoting me. That's a Usenet no-no. I didn't change the handle of
"The Historian". I'm sarcastic enough at times without the "help".

:-)

Goran Tomic wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

I'm not aware I used a nickname, false or otherwise, in correcting
Sloan's Wikipedia entry.

We are all aware of that. You admitted that you are false poster and that
you tried to cheat Wikipedia editors with your friend Kingston.

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Your
behavior was like two miserable thieves who were cached during robbery. You
elevated your hands: "I wrote this"!

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

But your friend, thief Kingston tried
to deny that you wrote this. He wrote (sorry for paraphrase): It's not sure
that Neil wrote this because it could be his IP but it's not sure". He tried
to help you but after your admission you both were indirectly named Vandals,
by Wikipedia editors and they had to change post's rules to prevent such
cheating as you and your friend thief Kingston did.

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
There's been no change.

Rob wrote:

This was reposted by someone in the FIDE news group. It is well said
and I would hope that anyone with a penchant for history would
recognize it's merit.

Let's see how Rob would classify the following little gems, pulled from
the newsgroup posts of Phil Innes made August 13, 2005:


Harsh criticism is one thing, but gadflies have a few traits that make
them
standout

I.) Name calling, such as: scum bags, pimps, low life scumbags,
crooks,
thieves, fools, criminals and even misanthropes.

"...he is a stalker...", "...this son of a bitch...", "...people think
he is a turd...", "...a distorter...", "He
is true American sicko. He has previously speculated on my sex life,
whereas
he himself appears not to have any, and has never professed any
interest in
women, and even thinks that when other people talk of sex it is
'dirty'. Yet
this 400+ pounder who we might imagine is no Errol Flynn, likes to
suggest
what other's sex lives should be." "...crank bunch of people...",
"...compulsive public schizoid liar..."

II.) Serious accusations on criminal acts, gross mismanagement and
other
acts of malfeasance in office; made in a public forum and/or mass mail
outs.
Accusations so serious, that the more proper forum would be to file
complaints
at the State Attorney's office, or initiate the procedures to have the
subjects
of these complaints removed from office. In each of these, there would
be
investigation, a process of discovery; where the accused would have the
right
to defend himself.

"...stalker...", "...continues to libel anyone
[everone!] who has achieved more than he", "...formal legal action..."

"The Histerian" wrote in message
oups.com...
I would like Mr. Innes to
explain, in English if he is able, and with the help of a translator if
he is not, why he stated the following in a Shakespeare newsgroup:

"My qualifications for saying so is [sic] that I was nearly an
international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, [a person], who used to post here before
splitting, so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear."

Once again, we ask Mr. Innes for a factual reference - a FIDE/BCF/USCF
rating list, for instance - for his claim to be rated 2450. If he wrote
truthfully, it should be easy for him to produce documentation.


I think that you don't deserve any explanation. The first reason is because
you and Mr. Kingston were cached like two miserable thieves with false posts
under false nicknames in Wikipedia.
The second reason is because you don't know to play chess, merely you can
move the pieces and you can't understand explanation of real chess players
(I mean lines in opening or something else).
You are no competence for asking anything about chess.

I would ask you some personally, and I would like your sincere answer. What
are you trying to find on this newsgroup? Relaxation for your own
frustration regards your outlook? You repel all health children from chess
because they could think that chess deformed you terribly (mentally and
physically) in such way. So, I would appeal for these children who would
like to play chess and could became masters and grandmasters: Leave this
newsgroup. Leave chess players to themselves. They would find answer and
resolve all chess questions without you. Please leave health young people to
enjoy in their chess imagination.

The Hysterectian,former employed educator, wrote:
Goran Tomic wrote:
"The Histerian" wrote in message
oups.com...
I would like Mr. Innes to
explain, in English if he is able, and with the help of a translator if
he is not, why he stated the following in a Shakespeare newsgroup:

"My qualifications for saying so is [sic] that I was nearly an
international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, [a person], who used to post here before
splitting, so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear."

Once again, we ask Mr. Innes for a factual reference - a FIDE/BCF/USCF
rating list, for instance - for his claim to be rated 2450. If he wrote
truthfully, it should be easy for him to produce documentation.


I think that you don't deserve any explanation. The first reason is because
you and Mr. Kingston were cached like two miserable thieves with false posts
under false nicknames in Wikipedia.

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Neil,

If you had bothered to read further in Wikipedia you would have
discovered this:

"Wikipedia:Vandalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Shortcut:
WP:-( or wp:vand
Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change
to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of
the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of the
replacement of existing text with obscenities, namecalling, or other
wholly irrelevant content.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or
ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not
make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered
vandalism at Wikipedia.

Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be
spotted, and then dealt with - if you cannot deal with it yourself,
you can seek help from others.

A 2002 study by IBM found that most Wikipedia vandalism is reverted
within five minutes. (See official results.)"

And additionally, calling me a liar, I am not aware of anything I have
lied about. My ego dosen't require that type of stroking. It does
little to further chess to continue any discussion with you. I assume
that you will then resort to posting under another moniker at that
point.

Good Luck and Goodbye

Rob Mitchell

Rob wrote:
The Hysterectian,former employed educator, wrote:

"fomer employed educator"? What in the hell is Rob the Liar talking
about? I've never been an "employed educator" in any formal sense.

Goran Tomic wrote:
"The Histerian" wrote in message
oups.com...
I would like Mr. Innes to
explain, in English if he is able, and with the help of a translator if
he is not, why he stated the following in a Shakespeare newsgroup:

"My qualifications for saying so is [sic] that I was nearly an
international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, [a person], who used to post here before
splitting, so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear."

Once again, we ask Mr. Innes for a factual reference - a FIDE/BCF/USCF
rating list, for instance - for his claim to be rated 2450. If he wrote
truthfully, it should be easy for him to produce documentation.


I think that you don't deserve any explanation. The first reason is because
you and Mr. Kingston were cached like two miserable thieves with false posts
under false nicknames in Wikipedia.

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Neil,

If you had bothered to read further in Wikipedia you would have
discovered this:

"Wikipedia:Vandalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Shortcut:
WP:-( or wp:vand
Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change
to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of
the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of the
replacement of existing text with obscenities, namecalling, or other
wholly irrelevant content.

So Sloan's felony, kidnapping, time in prison, ban from the securities
industry, etc, are all "irrelevent" to Rob. BTW Rob, Sloan's bio at
Wikipedia is under scrutiny for violating the Neutral Point of View
policy of the site, and may be deleted.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or
ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not
make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered
vandalism at Wikipedia.

Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be
spotted, and then dealt with - if you cannot deal with it yourself,
you can seek help from others.

A 2002 study by IBM found that most Wikipedia vandalism is reverted
within five minutes. (See official results.)"

And additionally, calling me a liar, I am not aware of anything I have
lied about.

A recent example: "It appears he said that, if indeed he did post that,
in reference to a personal attack by person or persons unnamed." But
the post in question was in response to a COMPLIMENT from a person who
DID sign their name and was known to Innes.

My ego dosen't require that type of stroking. It does
little to further chess to continue any discussion with you.

It does nothing to further chess to post to RGCP.

I assume
that you will then resort to posting under another moniker at that
point.

????????????????????????????

Dear Rob Mitchell

I directly desire you to desist in providing this person with ANY
information about my personal life.

I will send you a record of a woman he stalked and betrayed in a
Shakespearean newsgroup - in her own words. I will also advise you that he
is a copyist - and his hero is accused of writing thousands of abusive
messages to another woman on the Shakespearean group.

It is an obsession - a fixation - he can't stop, and will trash the whole
world rather than look at why he does it. That means that he now starts
calling you a liar. In my own case a 'mysterious' anon showed up who wrote
trash about my wife.

Phil Innes



"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

Rob the Liar wrote:
The Hysterectian wrote:
I would like Mr. Innes to
explain, in English if he is able, and with the help of a translator if
he is not, why he stated the following in a Shakespeare newsgroup:

"My qualifications for saying so is [sic] that I was nearly an
international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, [a person], who used to post here before
splitting, so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear."

It appears he said that, if indeed he did post that, in reference to a
personal attack by person or persons unnamed.

Not even a half-hour since I posed the question and Rob is out with a
lie. Here is the post that prompted Innes' claim to be "nearly an IM":

"Dear Phil -
There was a lot of discussion 5 years ago about the "Chess Portrait"
but you are the first (that I recall) to analysis the actual chess"

Not much of a personal attack, is it? The author has contributed about
6K posts to the Shakespeare newsgroup under his own name. This, like
the others, was signed. Hardly the "persons unnamed" that Rob the Liar
claims as author. And even if Rob were speaking the truth for once, why
would posting a bogus chess rating be a defense against a "personal
attack"? If he doubts Innes is the author, why is it Mr. Innes has not
disowned the post as a forgery?

Once again, I ask Mr. Innes for a factual reference - a FIDE/BCF/USCF
rating list, for instance - for his claim to be rated 2450. If he wrote
truthfully, it should be easy for him to produce documentation.

Still waiting.

"The Historian" wrote in message

I'm not aware I used a nickname, false or otherwise, in correcting
Sloan's Wikipedia entry.

We are all aware of that. You admitted that you are false poster and that
you tried to cheat Wikipedia editors with your friend Kingston. Your
behavior was like two miserable thieves who were cached during robbery. You
elevated your hands: "I wrote this"! But your friend, thief Kingston tried
to deny that you wrote this. He wrote (sorry for paraphrase): It's not sure
that Neil wrote this because it could be his IP but it's not sure". He tried
to help you but after your admission you both were indirectly named Vandals,
by Wikipedia editors and they had to change post's rules to prevent such
cheating as you and your friend thief Kingston did.
Everybody on this newsgroup know that.
So, the only question is what to do with cached two miserable thieves, like
you and Mr. Kingston. To forgive you? No!!! You are thieves and you have to
be punished! There are young mother and children who read this. They could
think that each chess player is like you and Mr. Kingston, thief. So I
appeal the last time in the name of future masters and grandmasters, young
fathers, mothers and children (young population, generally) who read this:
Leave this newsgroup and leave chess to chess players! That's their joy and
don't spoil it them! Go away of this newsgroup and chess, please, all chess
community send you a big appeal: GOOOO!!!!!