Dear Phil,

Consider it done.

A simple "google" of the man fines a wealth of hatred. Every news group
he posts in finds him deliberatly trying to pick fights and stalk
people. I would never provide him with anything of a personal nature
about you, be assured. He is a viper and cannot be trusted in my
opinion. I shall respond no longer to any of his posts; though I may be
so inclinded from time to time to offer defense.

The best punishment to some is to simply ignore them totally and allow
them to stew in thier own self impotence and misery.

Best wishes,
Rob

And to note: If he should ever mention my family in a hostile way
....... I will make a phone call to family friends in Philly.

Chess One wrote:
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.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On 13 Aug 2005 19:24:50 -0700, "The Historian"
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."

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.

Jeez, Phil, answer this just to shut him up.

He already has answers Mike - the thing of it is, he invents my quotes for
me - or so subverts the context as to make things absurd. All he wants is
more attention - he doesn't give a damn what he says to get it!

Here are some ideas:

(1) A scoundrel forged the post.

(2 You were testing "The Historian" for alertness. Since it took him
five days to respond, he failed the test.

(2) "The Historian" has misconstrued your words. You meant that the
approximate rating of an IM was 2450, and with your own rating of
about 2100, you and the IM were in the top couple percent of all
tournament players, and that's what you meant by "nearly".

I wrote that I played at that level over TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO!

(3) Succumbing to human frailty, you exaggerated a wee bit for
emphasis, and who's perfect, anyway?

LOL. Of course! Now, would you want to hear why I was almost world champion,
but...? Maybe you go first - it could be the funniest thread of the year.

This guy doesn't care for honesty in any context, he only wants to bring
people down to his own miserable level. He proposes all sorts of things 'I
said' but from his context of understanding not mine, then he gets someone
else to say that it is stupid!

He volunteers abuse to other newsgroups misrepresenting what happens here.
he will challenge everything in order to get more attention to himself.

I am currently nowhere near 2450. But this weekend played half a dozen games
at about 2250 performance which wasn't bad since I drank a whole bottle of
wine during the games. But what of it?

Brennen published one game score of mine against another player and declared
that it was not master level play. Should we really go by the game score or
his assessment of it?

Like on all other subjects he has a junior understanding of things, a 1300
player categorically decides what master play is - but how would he know?

He criticises 'my quote' of Orwell when I was quoting Orwell's biographer
[Jeffrey Myers] on Orwell! But he knows this! Since I have corrected this
specific 'mistake' 5 times. So these are willing distortions, and there are
tons of them.

Sometimes the great sexologist-Brennen volunteers his advise on sex, [that
is, on other people's sex lives] but he hasn't read Henry Miller, etc! For
pointing this out after Brennen vilified Sam Sloan for being a heterosexual
["dirty"] the German psychologist Tueschen is now become demonised as
anti-Semitic.

From here its easy to continue to free-relate all things together - for
example I write to Tueschen in public therefore I am also anti Semitic. We
take the **** out of some pompous writers who waffle about sex or Semitic
subjects, you know, about people who are the same as some naval enthusiasts
who use rather more naval terms than actual naval officers, therefore I and
all who relate to me are practically the same as Heydrich.

To prove that he is not a maliciously obsessive waste of time Brennen could
attempt writing on chess subjects like most other people here.

Phil Innes

Rob wrote:
Dear Phil,

Consider it done.

A simple "google" of the man fines a wealth of hatred.

Most of it coming from Innes.

Every news group
he posts in finds him deliberatly trying to pick fights and stalk
people. I would never provide him with anything of a personal nature
about you, be assured. He is a viper and cannot be trusted in my
opinion. I shall respond no longer to any of his posts; though I may be
so inclinded (sic) from time to time to offer defense.

I'm sure you will always find a reason to defend the indefensible.

The best punishment to some is to simply ignore them totally and allow
them to stew in thier (sic) own self impotence and misery.

Best wishes,
Rob

And to note: If he should ever mention my family in a hostile way
...... I will make a phone call to family friends in Philly.

And what will these alleged "friends" do? Do they lie as you do, Rob?

Chess One wrote:
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.

Did you get this woman's permission to report her "own words", Phil?
What's more, did you see if she agrees with your claim she was
"stalked?" (Innes won't answer them since he knows the answer.)

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

Yes, "xganon", who was most likely Innes himself.

(2) "The Historian" has misconstrued your words. You meant that the
approximate rating of an IM was 2450, and with your own rating of
about 2100, you and the IM were in the top couple percent of all
tournament players, and that's what you meant by "nearly".

I wrote that I played at that level over TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO!

Probably the best approach is for people to examine the entire post in
question themselves at:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...3b177a3e97fefc
examining the post made by Chess One at "Sep 21 2004, 6:13 pm". This
will require simply pasting the above url and searching via Ctrl-F for
the quoted date/time.

In particular the section:
"My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450"

That raises the questions of on which rating system and when this 2450
was obtained. Can you provide a rough date and rating system so that we
can try to find verification for your claim?

- Tom Martinak

Rob Mitchell should be aware that people wrote abusive messages about female
members of my family after an altercation in this newsgroup with Brennen.

I simply offer this notice of a matter of fact. Should this complaint prove
insufficient I suppose I could resurrect another stalking [this time of a
woman] by Brennen from another newsgroup.

Stalking usually occurs to those who have an apparent authority and it
doesn't matter whether there is uncritically agreement with them and all
they say, or obsessive! personal abuse - the authority thing is the key.

Its an interesting specualtion: Perhaps a resolution for the stalker is to
seek self-approval rather than demand approval of others?

Should a person actually stop his constant abuse of others the self-evident
truth of what one does compared to what one says would be so much clearer.

Phil Innes

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

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..."

Chess One wrote:
Rob Mitchell should be aware that people wrote abusive messages about female
members of my family after an altercation in this newsgroup with Brennen.

One poster, most probably Innes himself, under the name "xagnnon".
Also, the posts appeared after altercations with Wick Deer, James Eade,
Frank Niro, and others. I'm not aware Innes has villified anyone but me
for them, however.

I simply offer this notice of a matter of fact. Should this complaint prove
insufficient I suppose I could resurrect another stalking [this time of a
woman] by Brennen from another newsgroup.

Again, have you gotten permission from the woman in question to
republish her newsgroup posts? And have you asked her if she agreed
with your use of the term "stalked"? I know you can't answer these
questions truthfully, because I know the answers to them, but I thought
I'd remind you of them.

"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...

And to note: If he should ever mention my family in a hostile way
...... I will make a phone call to family friends in Philly.

They're the Mitchell's that were saved by the guy that killed the
****-eating dog?

"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
oups.com...
(2) "The Historian" has misconstrued your words. You meant that the
approximate rating of an IM was 2450, and with your own rating of
about 2100, you and the IM were in the top couple percent of all
tournament players, and that's what you meant by "nearly".

I wrote that I played at that level over TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO!

Probably the best approach is for people to examine the entire post in
question themselves at:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...3b177a3e97fefc
examining the post made by Chess One at "Sep 21 2004, 6:13 pm". This
will require simply pasting the above url and searching via Ctrl-F for
the quoted date/time.

In particular the section:
"My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450"

That raises the questions of on which rating system and when this 2450
was obtained. Can you provide a rough date and rating system so that we
can try to find verification for your claim?

No Tom. I choose not to. You can believe whatever you want - why should I
care what you think? I am not interested in being interogated, especially by
you who publish Brennen )

The person you publish has suggested this morning that I wrote abuse to
myself under the posting name "xganon" - STOP! Don't look it up unless you
have a strong stomach.

But you probably have since you publish this guy. Go stalk your own life!

Phil Innes

- Tom Martinak

Chess One wrote:
"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
oups.com...
(2) "The Historian" has misconstrued your words. You meant that the
approximate rating of an IM was 2450, and with your own rating of
about 2100, you and the IM were in the top couple percent of all
tournament players, and that's what you meant by "nearly".

I wrote that I played at that level over TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO!

Probably the best approach is for people to examine the entire post in
question themselves at:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...3b177a3e97fefc
examining the post made by Chess One at "Sep 21 2004, 6:13 pm". This
will require simply pasting the above url and searching via Ctrl-F for
the quoted date/time.

In particular the section:
"My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450"

That raises the questions of on which rating system and when this 2450
was obtained. Can you provide a rough date and rating system so that we
can try to find verification for your claim?

No Tom. I choose not to. You can believe whatever you want - why should I
care what you think?

In other words, you like to present fiction as fact, and no one has the
right to question it.

I am not interested in being interogated, especially by
you who publish Brennen )

The person you publish has suggested this morning that I wrote abuse to
myself under the posting name "xganon" - STOP!

My suspicions were raised when an associate of Mr. Innes offered to
locate "xganon" and Mr. Innes told him not to. Why Mr. Innes suddenly
lost interest in determining the identity of this person after spending
years blaming me for the posts is obvious.

Don't look it up unless you
have a strong stomach.

But you probably have since you publish this guy. Go stalk your own life!

Phil Innes

- Tom Martinak