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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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:
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.

Yes, please. Answer this and we can move on to the source of the Orwell
"quotation" you were spouting a few years ago. Perhaps Mr. Murray will
like that discussion more? :-)

Here are some ideas:

(1) A scoundrel forged the post.

OK, why is it Mr. Innes has not disowned the post if it is not his?

(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".

Even your buddy Parr would balk at that one.

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

In other words, he lied.

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

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.

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".

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

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 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.

I'm not aware I used a nickname, false or otherwise, in correcting
Sloan's Wikipedia entry. And the irony of the plagiarist Tomic calling
anyone else a thief is almost beyond belief.

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 hardly consider you a real chessplayer, Moron.

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.

BIRDS OF A FEATHER

You admitted that you are false poster and that you tried to cheat
Wikipedia editors with your friend Kingston. Goran Tomic

Actually my point was the hypocrisy of the known thief, Tomic,
assuming an air of moral authority and calling someone else a thief.
Taylor Kingston (aka Xylothist, Paulie Graf, Neimand, etc., etc., etc.)

I haven't followed all the postings on the Neil Brennen-Wikipedia
flap and can't speak about whether he dishonestly used a false name
when posting a biography of Sam Sloan, if that is even the charge.

Taylor Kingston will defendhis new-found ally Mr. Brennen because
he must. His ego can't take any more flak just now.

wrote:
BIRDS OF A FEATHER

You admitted that you are false poster and that you tried to cheat
Wikipedia editors with your friend Kingston. Goran Tomic

Actually my point was the hypocrisy of the known thief, Tomic,
assuming an air of moral authority and calling someone else a thief.
Taylor Kingston (aka Xylothist, Paulie Graf, Neimand, etc., etc., etc.)

I haven't followed all the postings on the Neil Brennen-Wikipedia
flap and can't speak about whether he dishonestly used a false name
when posting a biography of Sam Sloan, if that is even the charge.

Who knows at this point? Obviously the posters cannot read the site's
homepage:

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

I must not count as anyone.

Taylor Kingston will defendhis new-found ally Mr. Brennen because
he must. His ego can't take any more flak just now.

I don't consider Mr. Kingston an ally. He's a book reviewer.