Snipper Blair at it again! No snips indicated of course, since that would be
honest. PI


"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:05:42 GMT):

Brunann is entirely capable of ... recommending to editor
Hoffman that correspondance from the likes of a 5 times
US Champion are negligable compared with his own
judgement of such matters!

_
"I have [checked my own emails]. I'll even post
it he
_
**************
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
_
Again, I'd suggest ignoring all email
from chesstours AKA Larry Evans.
And please be prepared for all of your
correspondence to appear on message
boards and newsgroups, courtesy
Evans and his pet hack Larry Parr.
_
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
********************"
- Neil Brennen (24 May 2006 02:45:27 -0700)
_
_
" NEIL BRENNEN TO CJA GROUP
_
In a message dated 5/13/2006
11:59:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
writes:
_
Mr. Hoffman,
_
I suggest ignoring the emails from
chesstours, AKA Larry Evans. He
forgot - if that is truly the word - to
identify himself..
_
Best wishes to all except one
[GM Evans]."
- Neil Brennen (23 May 2006
07:09:32 -0700)

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
I wrote (7 Jun 2006 23:06:55 -0700):
Phil Innes repeatedly chose to reproduce the one word,
"meaningless", without including the rest of the sentence. If
Phil Innes had reproduced that comment, it would have been
easily apparent that Phil Innes was lifting that word out of the
Vince Hart sentences and attaching it to PI's own theories
about Vince Hart's thinking.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:54:12 GMT):

Which was zero. Hart invited me to make a contribution on the
basis of a set of standards, which he then termed 'meaningless'
[see below]. Which presumably means that the matter is
dismissed as without sense, or that the person cannot ascribe
a meaning of their own to it. shrug
_
What is it that L. Blair doesn't understand?
...
"... dismissing others' as 'meaningless,' ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:40:22 GMT)
_
"You dismissed Pehme's site and his commissioned
article as 'meaningless'." - Phil Innes (Sat, 01 Apr 2006
00:12:42 GMT)
_
"when I wrote to that subjct [of general standards
Vinny] dismissed it as 'meaningless'" - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:52:20 GMT)

_
I do not understand what Phil Innes thinks he accomplishes by

What Louis Blair understand of the issue. But Louis Blair cannot say that he
understands anything. When asked about his own understanding of the
dismissive word 'meaningless' Blair replies by saying he doesn't see I think
I am accomplishing...

zzzzz?zzzzz


repeatedly snipping the actual Vince Hart quotes that I have
provided. It is not much trouble to restore them so that others
can easily compare the Phil Innes description with what Vince
Hart actually wrote:
_
"... The fact that you approve of your own
motives and disapprove of others' motives
is meaningless ..." - Vince Hart
(28 Mar 2006 09:47:07 -0800)
_
"Please stop misrepresenting my position Phil.
As I explained, I maintain that your claim that
you are the only one who cares about certain
issues is meaningless (although 'is a load of
crap' may be a more accurate description of
my position)." - Vince Hart (29 Mar 2006
08:34:50 -0800
_
By the way, the Vince Hart invitation was AFTER all of the Vince
Hart and Phil Innes notes above.
_
"OK Phil. I'll ask. What might you consider
a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
06:15:49 -0700)
_
Here is some of the subsequent discussion:

STOP! YOU LUNATIC

DISCUSS WHAT I SAID OR PROPOSE YOUR OWN - otherwise I don't care what you
write next - GET IT? If anyone else wants to discuss these items - let them!
But GAWD! They are as plain as day and if Blair doesn't want to write about
them himself, perhaps he could stick his nose elesewhere?

I don't want to write about serious subjects with people who **** it away by
this sort of idotic juvenile repetition.

Phil Innes

"To define my terms: A standard is a behavior which
supports the activity undertaken, and relates to all
parties, and is an electable ethical code.
_
We might discuss standards which relate to sexism
in chess writing from the point of view of those who
do see evidence of sexism in writing as oppressive
_
I would propose three prime constituencies -
(a) women, (b) children, and also a standard of (c)
governance.
_
Just to be clear, this is for what prospers /them/ that
is, those constituencies identified to suffer from a lack
of standard, or hinders them from participation in chess.
The category of governance as it relates to chess is
discussed by the same means, what aids or ails us,
from the perspective of /the chess player/.
_
Are you interested in conducting such a conversation?"
- Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:17:03 GMT)
_
_
"I am still not sure what the subject of the conversation
would be. Please give me an example of the type of
standard that you are interested in discussing Phil."
- Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006 10:17:41 -0700)
_
_
"Vinny, you should read what I wrote again, and ask
more specific questions. What did you specifically not
understand, or what would you like to make as a
standard? It s a straightforward process, and if neither
of us like to read about sexism, or child abuse, or
non-representation of chess players generally, let us go
forward." - Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:45:59 GMT)
_
_
"No Phil. I am asking you what you would like to make
as a standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
that don't help me to determine whether this is a
discussion worth pursuing.
_
As I recall Phil, you said that I was 'carefully avoiding any
question of general standards.' You said that I avoided
'ask[ing] what other people might consider a standard.'
Now I am asking you to give me an example of what you
would propose as a standard. Can you answer?" - Vince
Hart (3 Apr 2006 13:23:28 -0700)
_
_
"I just don't fundertstand your expressions. I want you to
be specific if you want to enter a converstion from your
point of view. I alrady offered you a basis of entry - and I
am quite clearly not interested in being the subject of a
one-sided interogation.
_
I am asking you what you would like to make as a
standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
_
But more specific than yours! Why did you skip EVERY
category and item I mention? huh? Its you who are being
vague, but you are used to projecting your vagueness
onto others. You have nothing to say yourself, even
though I offer you a basis for a discussion.
...
Neither do you state what it is that would constitute 'a
conversation worth pursuing'.
...
You are not in the least capable of writing what you think,
since I gave you the opportunity to respond to a
prospectus; 3 specific items - and if you would like to talk
about them.
_
But I waste my time with you who cannot mention
anything about their own orientation, or bother to respond,
even after all this writing, to my proposition.
_
So - what a waste of time you are!@ Meanwhile I will
continue to address this subject without you." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:14:53 GMT)
_
_
"You told me to ask specific questions Phil. Here is my
question. Can you give me an example of what you would
propose as a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
15:15:23 -0700)
_
_
"... like it or not ... nobody appears to be taking your
suggestion [of addressing what consitutes a standard]
seriously. ...
...
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup, about
'standards of public decency to children and women'. ..."
- David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
"Vinny ... can't acknowledge ... the range of subjects I
suggested, or that an essentially decency of any material
needs be assessed primarily by the insulted constituency,
whether women, children, or all chess players generally."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
"I have asked you for an example of your idea of
respectable standards Phil and you have refused to
answer. ..." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 06:56:27 -0700)
_
_
"I have refused to indulge your prurient interests further -
I did answer, and asked if these things interested you.
David Kane was kind enough to /notice/ my answer, and
said he would not like to answer them in a public
newsgroup.
_
So you protests are entirely ... wrong." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:07:59 GMT)
_
_
"I am not protesting anything Phil. I am asking a question
about your idea of respectable standards. I did not realize
that you could not articulate your standards without
becoming prurient." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 08:43:00 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your further response. I hope it is now clear
who cares for what, and what makes for a waste of time.
Since Vinny has now twice accused me of not writing to
standards, and here ignores the opportunity to correct
himself by way of David Kane having noticed it, as I wrote
before, I will continue the subject with people who have
declared themselves able to do so themselves, and which
in my estimation has nothing to do with writings here."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:07:01 GMT)
_
_
"your obvious lack of credibility is a big reason [for why
I am not interested enough in the subject to engage it].
Vince deserves some kind of award for the patience he's
shown you. But I predict that you will fail to make a
meaningful contribution on this topic." - David Kane
(Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:25:16 -0700)
_
_
"I have repeatedly given you an opportunity to give me an
example of the kind of standard that you would propose.
Until you do so, I stand by my statement that you are not
writing about standards; you are merely writing about
writing about standards. David Kane has noticed that you
have not made a meaningful contribution to the conversation,
which does not seem to call for any correction on my part."
- Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 16:16:23 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your commentary David. You personally
declined to make any contribution to it! And Vinny has
not yet noticed it to be worth addressing. Am I to discuss
a subject with people who don't care for the topic?
_
Why should I care that I lack any 'credability' with people
who themselves can't write about the topic itself? You all
had a choice, but you personalised it to prefer scandals
to standards." - Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:22:28 GMT)
_
_
"I am offering to write about standards! And I did suggest
a basis for such a conversation. Now, accept it by
engaging it, or make your own counter-suggestion."
- Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:30:26 GMT)
_
_
"You not writing about standards. You are merely
offering to write about standards if someone else will do it
first.
_
That is why you have no credibility." - Vince Hart
(5 Apr 2006 06:49:20 -0700)

I wrote (9 Jun 2006 09:00:32 -0700):

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:05:42 GMT):
_
Brunann is entirely capable of ... recommending to editor
Hoffman that correspondance from the likes of a 5 times
US Champion are negligable compared with his own
judgement of such matters!
_
_
"I have [checked my own emails]. I'll even post
it he
_
**************
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
_
Again, I'd suggest ignoring all email
from chesstours AKA Larry Evans.
And please be prepared for all of your
correspondence to appear on message
boards and newsgroups, courtesy
Evans and his pet hack Larry Parr.
_
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
********************"
- Neil Brennen (24 May 2006 02:45:27 -0700)
_
_
" NEIL BRENNEN TO CJA GROUP
_
In a message dated 5/13/2006
11:59:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
writes:
_
Mr. Hoffman,
_
I suggest ignoring the emails from
chesstours, AKA Larry Evans. He
forgot - if that is truly the word - to
identify himself..
_
Best wishes to all except one
[GM Evans]."
- Neil Brennen (23 May 2006
07:09:32 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:02:50 GMT):
Snipper Blair at it again! No snips indicated of course, since
that would be honest.

_
Phil Innes, of course, identifies nothing that was left out and
relevant to the subject of Neil Brennen's notes to Hoffman.
_
Phil Innes also fails to mention that he has, himself, snipped
without notice.
_
Phil Innes also expresses no remorse about describing what
Neil Brennen wrote without quoting it.
_
"... Don't snip and paraphrase. It makes you
look like a cheap cheat. ..." - Phil Innes (Mon,
27 Mar 2006 22:50:08 GMT)

I wrote (7 Jun 2006 23:06:55 -0700):
Phil Innes repeatedly chose to reproduce the one word,
"meaningless", without including the rest of the sentence. If
Phil Innes had reproduced that comment, it would have been
easily apparent that Phil Innes was lifting that word out of the
Vince Hart sentences and attaching it to PI's own theories
about Vince Hart's thinking.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:54:12 GMT):
Which was zero. Hart invited me to make a contribution on the
basis of a set of standards, which he then termed 'meaningless'
[see below]. Which presumably means that the matter is
dismissed as without sense, or that the person cannot ascribe
a meaning of their own to it. shrug
_
What is it that L. Blair doesn't understand?
...
"... dismissing others' as 'meaningless,' ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:40:22 GMT)
_
"You dismissed Pehme's site and his commissioned
article as 'meaningless'." - Phil Innes (Sat, 01 Apr 2006
00:12:42 GMT)
_
"when I wrote to that subjct [of general standards
Vinny] dismissed it as 'meaningless'" - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:52:20 GMT)
_
I wrote (9 Jun 2006 06:44:15 -0700):
I do not understand what Phil Innes thinks he accomplishes by
repeatedly snipping the actual Vince Hart quotes that I have
provided. It is not much trouble to restore them so that others
can easily compare the Phil Innes description with what Vince
Hart actually wrote:
_
"... The fact that you approve of your own
motives and disapprove of others' motives
is meaningless ..." - Vince Hart
(28 Mar 2006 09:47:07 -0800)
_
"Please stop misrepresenting my position Phil.
As I explained, I maintain that your claim that
you are the only one who cares about certain
issues is meaningless (although 'is a load of
crap' may be a more accurate description of
my position)." - Vince Hart (29 Mar 2006
08:34:50 -0800

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:21:20 GMT):

What Louis Blair understand of the issue. But Louis Blair cannot
say that he understands anything. When asked about his own
understanding of the dismissive word 'meaningless' Blair replies
by saying he doesn't see I think I am accomplishing...

zzzzz?zzzzz

_
In reality, Phil Innes asked:
_
"What is it that L. Blair doesn't understand?" - Phil
Innes (Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:54:12 GMT)
_
That was the question that I answered. See above.

_
I wrote (9 Jun 2006 06:44:15 -0700):
By the way, the Vince Hart invitation was AFTER all of the Vince
Hart and Phil Innes notes above.
_
"OK Phil. I'll ask. What might you consider
a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
06:15:49 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:21:20 GMT):

STOP! YOU LUNATIC
_
DISCUSS WHAT I SAID OR PROPOSE YOUR OWN - otherwise
I don't care what you write next - GET IT? If anyone else wants to
discuss these items - let them! But GAWD! They are as plain as
day and if Blair doesn't want to write about them himself, perhaps
he could stick his nose elesewhere?
_
I don't want to write about serious subjects with people who ****
it away by this sort of idotic juvenile repetition.

_
It strikes me as a worthwhile activity to make it easy for people to
see the difference between what actually happened and the Phil
Innes description of what happened.

_
I wrote (9 Jun 2006 06:44:15 -0700):
Here is some of the subsequent discussion:
_
"To define my terms: A standard is a behavior which
supports the activity undertaken, and relates to all
parties, and is an electable ethical code.
_
We might discuss standards which relate to sexism
in chess writing from the point of view of those who
do see evidence of sexism in writing as oppressive
_
I would propose three prime constituencies -
(a) women, (b) children, and also a standard of (c)
governance.
_
Just to be clear, this is for what prospers /them/ that
is, those constituencies identified to suffer from a lack
of standard, or hinders them from participation in chess.
The category of governance as it relates to chess is
discussed by the same means, what aids or ails us,
from the perspective of /the chess player/.
_
Are you interested in conducting such a conversation?"
- Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:17:03 GMT)
_
_
"I am still not sure what the subject of the conversation
would be. Please give me an example of the type of
standard that you are interested in discussing Phil."
- Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006 10:17:41 -0700)
_
_
"Vinny, you should read what I wrote again, and ask
more specific questions. What did you specifically not
understand, or what would you like to make as a
standard? It s a straightforward process, and if neither
of us like to read about sexism, or child abuse, or
non-representation of chess players generally, let us go
forward." - Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:45:59 GMT)
_
_
"No Phil. I am asking you what you would like to make
as a standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
that don't help me to determine whether this is a
discussion worth pursuing.
_
As I recall Phil, you said that I was 'carefully avoiding any
question of general standards.' You said that I avoided
'ask[ing] what other people might consider a standard.'
Now I am asking you to give me an example of what you
would propose as a standard. Can you answer?" - Vince
Hart (3 Apr 2006 13:23:28 -0700)
_
_
"I just don't fundertstand your expressions. I want you to
be specific if you want to enter a converstion from your
point of view. I alrady offered you a basis of entry - and I
am quite clearly not interested in being the subject of a
one-sided interogation.
_
I am asking you what you would like to make as a
standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
_
But more specific than yours! Why did you skip EVERY
category and item I mention? huh? Its you who are being
vague, but you are used to projecting your vagueness
onto others. You have nothing to say yourself, even
though I offer you a basis for a discussion.
...
Neither do you state what it is that would constitute 'a
conversation worth pursuing'.
...
You are not in the least capable of writing what you think,
since I gave you the opportunity to respond to a
prospectus; 3 specific items - and if you would like to talk
about them.
_
But I waste my time with you who cannot mention
anything about their own orientation, or bother to respond,
even after all this writing, to my proposition.
_
So - what a waste of time you are!@ Meanwhile I will
continue to address this subject without you." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:14:53 GMT)
_
_
"You told me to ask specific questions Phil. Here is my
question. Can you give me an example of what you would
propose as a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
15:15:23 -0700)
_
_
"... like it or not ... nobody appears to be taking your
suggestion [of addressing what consitutes a standard]
seriously. ...
...
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup, about
'standards of public decency to children and women'. ..."
- David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
"... Vinny ... can't acknowledge ... the range of subjects I
suggested, or that an essentially decency of any material
needs be assessed primarily by the insulted constituency,
whether women, children, or all chess players generally. ..."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
"I have asked you for an example of your idea of
respectable standards Phil and you have refused to
answer. ..." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 06:56:27 -0700)
_
_
"I have refused to indulge your prurient interests further -
I did answer, and asked if these things interested you.
David Kane was kind enough to /notice/ my answer, and
said he would not like to answer them in a public
newsgroup.
_
So you protests are entirely ... wrong." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:07:59 GMT)
_
_
"I am not protesting anything Phil. I am asking a question
about your idea of respectable standards. I did not realize
that you could not articulate your standards without
becoming prurient." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 08:43:00 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your further response. I hope it is now clear
who cares for what, and what makes for a waste of time.
Since Vinny has now twice accused me of not writing to
standards, and here ignores the opportunity to correct
himself by way of David Kane having noticed it, as I wrote
before, I will continue the subject with people who have
declared themselves able to do so themselves, and which
in my estimation has nothing to do with writings here."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:07:01 GMT)
_
_
"... your obvious lack of credibility is a big reason [for why
I am not interested enough in the subject to engage it].
Vince deserves some kind of award for the patience he's
shown you. But I predict that you will fail to make a
meaningful contribution on this topic." - David Kane
(Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:25:16 -0700)
_
_
"I have repeatedly given you an opportunity to give me an
example of the kind of standard that you would propose.
Until you do so, I stand by my statement that you are not
writing about standards; you are merely writing about
writing about standards. David Kane has noticed that you
have not made a meaningful contribution to the conversation,
which does not seem to call for any correction on my part."
- Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 16:16:23 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your commentary David. You personally
declined to make any contribution to it! And Vinny has
not yet noticed it to be worth addressing. Am I to discuss
a subject with people who don't care for the topic?
_
Why should I care that I lack any 'credability' with people
who themselves can't write about the topic itself? You all
had a choice, but you personalised it to prefer scandals
to standards." - Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:22:28 GMT)
_
_
"... I am offering to write about standards! And I did suggest
a basis for such a conversation. Now, accept it by
engaging it, or make your own counter-suggestion. ..."
- Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:30:26 GMT)
_
_
"... You not writing about standards. You are merely
offering to write about standards if someone else will do it
first.
_
That is why you have no credibility." - Vince Hart
(5 Apr 2006 06:49:20 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:21:20 GMT):

What Louis Blair understand of the issue. But Louis Blair cannot say that he
understands anything. When asked about his own understanding of the
dismissive word 'meaningless' Blair replies by saying he doesn't see I think
I am accomplishing...

zzzzz?zzzzz


repeatedly snipping the actual Vince Hart quotes that I have
provided. It is not much trouble to restore them so that others
can easily compare the Phil Innes description with what Vince
Hart actually wrote:
_
"... The fact that you approve of your own
motives and disapprove of others' motives
is meaningless ..." - Vince Hart
(28 Mar 2006 09:47:07 -0800)
_
"Please stop misrepresenting my position Phil.
As I explained, I maintain that your claim that
you are the only one who cares about certain
issues is meaningless (although 'is a load of
crap' may be a more accurate description of
my position)." - Vince Hart (29 Mar 2006
08:34:50 -0800
_
By the way, the Vince Hart invitation was AFTER all of the Vince
Hart and Phil Innes notes above.
_
"OK Phil. I'll ask. What might you consider
a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
06:15:49 -0700)
_
Here is some of the subsequent discussion:

STOP! YOU LUNATIC

DISCUSS WHAT I SAID OR PROPOSE YOUR OWN - otherwise I don't care what you
write next - GET IT? If anyone else wants to discuss these items - let them!
But GAWD! They are as plain as day and if Blair doesn't want to write about
them himself, perhaps he could stick his nose elesewhere?

I don't want to write about serious subjects with people who **** it away by
this sort of idotic juvenile repetition.

Phil Innes

"To define my terms: A standard is a behavior which
supports the activity undertaken, and relates to all
parties, and is an electable ethical code.
_
We might discuss standards which relate to sexism
in chess writing from the point of view of those who
do see evidence of sexism in writing as oppressive
_
I would propose three prime constituencies -
(a) women, (b) children, and also a standard of (c)
governance.
_
Just to be clear, this is for what prospers /them/ that
is, those constituencies identified to suffer from a lack
of standard, or hinders them from participation in chess.
The category of governance as it relates to chess is
discussed by the same means, what aids or ails us,
from the perspective of /the chess player/.
_
Are you interested in conducting such a conversation?"
- Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:17:03 GMT)
_
_
"I am still not sure what the subject of the conversation
would be. Please give me an example of the type of
standard that you are interested in discussing Phil."
- Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006 10:17:41 -0700)
_
_
"Vinny, you should read what I wrote again, and ask
more specific questions. What did you specifically not
understand, or what would you like to make as a
standard? It s a straightforward process, and if neither
of us like to read about sexism, or child abuse, or
non-representation of chess players generally, let us go
forward." - Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:45:59 GMT)
_
_
"No Phil. I am asking you what you would like to make
as a standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
that don't help me to determine whether this is a
discussion worth pursuing.
_
As I recall Phil, you said that I was 'carefully avoiding any
question of general standards.' You said that I avoided
'ask[ing] what other people might consider a standard.'
Now I am asking you to give me an example of what you
would propose as a standard. Can you answer?" - Vince
Hart (3 Apr 2006 13:23:28 -0700)
_
_
"I just don't fundertstand your expressions. I want you to
be specific if you want to enter a converstion from your
point of view. I alrady offered you a basis of entry - and I
am quite clearly not interested in being the subject of a
one-sided interogation.
_
I am asking you what you would like to make as a
standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
_
But more specific than yours! Why did you skip EVERY
category and item I mention? huh? Its you who are being
vague, but you are used to projecting your vagueness
onto others. You have nothing to say yourself, even
though I offer you a basis for a discussion.
...
Neither do you state what it is that would constitute 'a
conversation worth pursuing'.
...
You are not in the least capable of writing what you think,
since I gave you the opportunity to respond to a
prospectus; 3 specific items - and if you would like to talk
about them.
_
But I waste my time with you who cannot mention
anything about their own orientation, or bother to respond,
even after all this writing, to my proposition.
_
So - what a waste of time you are!@ Meanwhile I will
continue to address this subject without you." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:14:53 GMT)
_
_
"You told me to ask specific questions Phil. Here is my
question. Can you give me an example of what you would
propose as a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
15:15:23 -0700)
_
_
"... like it or not ... nobody appears to be taking your
suggestion [of addressing what consitutes a standard]
seriously. ...
...
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup, about
'standards of public decency to children and women'. ..."
- David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
"Vinny ... can't acknowledge ... the range of subjects I
suggested, or that an essentially decency of any material
needs be assessed primarily by the insulted constituency,
whether women, children, or all chess players generally."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
"I have asked you for an example of your idea of
respectable standards Phil and you have refused to
answer. ..." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 06:56:27 -0700)
_
_
"I have refused to indulge your prurient interests further -
I did answer, and asked if these things interested you.
David Kane was kind enough to /notice/ my answer, and
said he would not like to answer them in a public
newsgroup.
_
So you protests are entirely ... wrong." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:07:59 GMT)
_
_
"I am not protesting anything Phil. I am asking a question
about your idea of respectable standards. I did not realize
that you could not articulate your standards without
becoming prurient." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 08:43:00 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your further response. I hope it is now clear
who cares for what, and what makes for a waste of time.
Since Vinny has now twice accused me of not writing to
standards, and here ignores the opportunity to correct
himself by way of David Kane having noticed it, as I wrote
before, I will continue the subject with people who have
declared themselves able to do so themselves, and which
in my estimation has nothing to do with writings here."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:07:01 GMT)
_
_
"your obvious lack of credibility is a big reason [for why
I am not interested enough in the subject to engage it].
Vince deserves some kind of award for the patience he's
shown you. But I predict that you will fail to make a
meaningful contribution on this topic." - David Kane
(Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:25:16 -0700)
_
_
"I have repeatedly given you an opportunity to give me an
example of the kind of standard that you would propose.
Until you do so, I stand by my statement that you are not
writing about standards; you are merely writing about
writing about standards. David Kane has noticed that you
have not made a meaningful contribution to the conversation,
which does not seem to call for any correction on my part."
- Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 16:16:23 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your commentary David. You personally
declined to make any contribution to it! And Vinny has
not yet noticed it to be worth addressing. Am I to discuss
a subject with people who don't care for the topic?
_
Why should I care that I lack any 'credability' with people
who themselves can't write about the topic itself? You all
had a choice, but you personalised it to prefer scandals
to standards." - Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:22:28 GMT)
_
_
"I am offering to write about standards! And I did suggest
a basis for such a conversation. Now, accept it by
engaging it, or make your own counter-suggestion."
- Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:30:26 GMT)
_
_
"You not writing about standards. You are merely
offering to write about standards if someone else will do it
first.
_
That is why you have no credibility." - Vince Hart
(5 Apr 2006 06:49:20 -0700)

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
While looking at that old Innes-Hart-Kane-Kingston-Brennen
discussion, I came across part that deserves separate
attention:
_
"... I am not interested in the cut and deplore routine.
If you have something to say to standards of public
decency to children and women, David, write them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:40:30 GMT)

Louis - are you trying to trivialise this issue - what sort of person are
you with thesemindless repetitions?

If you have nothing to contribute to these serious matters, why you post at
all is beyond comprehension.

Phil Innes

_
_
" I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing.
_
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup,
about 'standards of public decency to children
and women'." - David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006
16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
_
" I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
_
I am not your boy! I already wrote a basis for an
approach - but no one seems actually interested
enough in the subject to engage it." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
_
"It appears Mr. Innes is talking to himself again.
And what's more, he's taking offense at his own
words. How long until he accuses himself of
self-stalking?" - Neil Brennen (4 Apr 2006
16:53:19 -0700)

Louis Blair, if this is a response to anything I wrote - don't indulge
yourself with another 1,00 words - make the subject clear - together with
why you wrote about it.

If you can't do that you are nuttier than the proverbial fruitcake. The
subject of sexual abuse and stalkings is not a trivial one to be be dallied
with, like Mr. Kingston's ego.

Phil Innes'

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
I wrote (7 Jun 2006 23:06:55 -0700):
Phil Innes repeatedly chose to reproduce the one word,
"meaningless", without including the rest of the sentence. If
Phil Innes had reproduced that comment, it would have been
easily apparent that Phil Innes was lifting that word out of the
Vince Hart sentences and attaching it to PI's own theories
about Vince Hart's thinking.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:54:12 GMT):

Which was zero. Hart invited me to make a contribution on the
basis of a set of standards, which he then termed 'meaningless'
[see below]. Which presumably means that the matter is
dismissed as without sense, or that the person cannot ascribe
a meaning of their own to it. shrug
_
What is it that L. Blair doesn't understand?
...
"... dismissing others' as 'meaningless,' ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:40:22 GMT)
_
"You dismissed Pehme's site and his commissioned
article as 'meaningless'." - Phil Innes (Sat, 01 Apr 2006
00:12:42 GMT)
_
"when I wrote to that subjct [of general standards
Vinny] dismissed it as 'meaningless'" - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:52:20 GMT)

_
I do not understand what Phil Innes thinks he accomplishes by
repeatedly snipping the actual Vince Hart quotes that I have
provided. It is not much trouble to restore them so that others
can easily compare the Phil Innes description with what Vince
Hart actually wrote:
_
"... The fact that you approve of your own
motives and disapprove of others' motives
is meaningless ..." - Vince Hart
(28 Mar 2006 09:47:07 -0800)
_
"Please stop misrepresenting my position Phil.
As I explained, I maintain that your claim that
you are the only one who cares about certain
issues is meaningless (although 'is a load of
crap' may be a more accurate description of
my position)." - Vince Hart (29 Mar 2006
08:34:50 -0800
_
By the way, the Vince Hart invitation was AFTER all of the Vince
Hart and Phil Innes notes above.
_
"OK Phil. I'll ask. What might you consider
a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
06:15:49 -0700)
_
Here is some of the subsequent discussion:
_
"To define my terms: A standard is a behavior which
supports the activity undertaken, and relates to all
parties, and is an electable ethical code.
_
We might discuss standards which relate to sexism
in chess writing from the point of view of those who
do see evidence of sexism in writing as oppressive
_
I would propose three prime constituencies -
(a) women, (b) children, and also a standard of (c)
governance.
_
Just to be clear, this is for what prospers /them/ that
is, those constituencies identified to suffer from a lack
of standard, or hinders them from participation in chess.
The category of governance as it relates to chess is
discussed by the same means, what aids or ails us,
from the perspective of /the chess player/.
_
Are you interested in conducting such a conversation?"
- Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:17:03 GMT)
_
_
"I am still not sure what the subject of the conversation
would be. Please give me an example of the type of
standard that you are interested in discussing Phil."
- Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006 10:17:41 -0700)
_
_
"Vinny, you should read what I wrote again, and ask
more specific questions. What did you specifically not
understand, or what would you like to make as a
standard? It s a straightforward process, and if neither
of us like to read about sexism, or child abuse, or
non-representation of chess players generally, let us go
forward." - Phil Innes (Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:45:59 GMT)
_
_
"No Phil. I am asking you what you would like to make
as a standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
that don't help me to determine whether this is a
discussion worth pursuing.
_
As I recall Phil, you said that I was 'carefully avoiding any
question of general standards.' You said that I avoided
'ask[ing] what other people might consider a standard.'
Now I am asking you to give me an example of what you
would propose as a standard. Can you answer?" - Vince
Hart (3 Apr 2006 13:23:28 -0700)
_
_
"I just don't fundertstand your expressions. I want you to
be specific if you want to enter a converstion from your
point of view. I alrady offered you a basis of entry - and I
am quite clearly not interested in being the subject of a
one-sided interogation.
_
I am asking you what you would like to make as a
standard. All I have seen so far is vague generalities
_
But more specific than yours! Why did you skip EVERY
category and item I mention? huh? Its you who are being
vague, but you are used to projecting your vagueness
onto others. You have nothing to say yourself, even
though I offer you a basis for a discussion.
...
Neither do you state what it is that would constitute 'a
conversation worth pursuing'.
...
You are not in the least capable of writing what you think,
since I gave you the opportunity to respond to a
prospectus; 3 specific items - and if you would like to talk
about them.
_
But I waste my time with you who cannot mention
anything about their own orientation, or bother to respond,
even after all this writing, to my proposition.
_
So - what a waste of time you are!@ Meanwhile I will
continue to address this subject without you." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:14:53 GMT)
_
_
"You told me to ask specific questions Phil. Here is my
question. Can you give me an example of what you would
propose as a standard?" - Vince Hart (3 Apr 2006
15:15:23 -0700)
_
_
"... like it or not ... nobody appears to be taking your
suggestion [of addressing what consitutes a standard]
seriously. ...
...
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup, about
'standards of public decency to children and women'. ..."
- David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
"... Vinny ... can't acknowledge ... the range of subjects I
suggested, or that an essentially decency of any material
needs be assessed primarily by the insulted constituency,
whether women, children, or all chess players generally. ..."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
"I have asked you for an example of your idea of
respectable standards Phil and you have refused to
answer. ..." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 06:56:27 -0700)
_
_
"I have refused to indulge your prurient interests further -
I did answer, and asked if these things interested you.
David Kane was kind enough to /notice/ my answer, and
said he would not like to answer them in a public
newsgroup.
_
So you protests are entirely ... wrong." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:07:59 GMT)
_
_
"I am not protesting anything Phil. I am asking a question
about your idea of respectable standards. I did not realize
that you could not articulate your standards without
becoming prurient." - Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 08:43:00 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your further response. I hope it is now clear
who cares for what, and what makes for a waste of time.
Since Vinny has now twice accused me of not writing to
standards, and here ignores the opportunity to correct
himself by way of David Kane having noticed it, as I wrote
before, I will continue the subject with people who have
declared themselves able to do so themselves, and which
in my estimation has nothing to do with writings here."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:07:01 GMT)
_
_
"... your obvious lack of credibility is a big reason [for why
I am not interested enough in the subject to engage it].
Vince deserves some kind of award for the patience he's
shown you. But I predict that you will fail to make a
meaningful contribution on this topic." - David Kane
(Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:25:16 -0700)
_
_
"I have repeatedly given you an opportunity to give me an
example of the kind of standard that you would propose.
Until you do so, I stand by my statement that you are not
writing about standards; you are merely writing about
writing about standards. David Kane has noticed that you
have not made a meaningful contribution to the conversation,
which does not seem to call for any correction on my part."
- Vince Hart (4 Apr 2006 16:16:23 -0700)
_
_
"Thank you for your commentary David. You personally
declined to make any contribution to it! And Vinny has
not yet noticed it to be worth addressing. Am I to discuss
a subject with people who don't care for the topic?
_
Why should I care that I lack any 'credability' with people
who themselves can't write about the topic itself? You all
had a choice, but you personalised it to prefer scandals
to standards." - Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:22:28 GMT)
_
_
"... I am offering to write about standards! And I did suggest
a basis for such a conversation. Now, accept it by
engaging it, or make your own counter-suggestion. ..."
- Phil Innes (Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:30:26 GMT)
_
_
"... You not writing about standards. You are merely
offering to write about standards if someone else will do it
first.
_
That is why you have no credibility." - Vince Hart
(5 Apr 2006 06:49:20 -0700)

I wrote (9 Jun 2006 06:51:10 -0700):
While looking at that old Innes-Hart-Kane-Kingston-Brennen
discussion, I came across part that deserves separate
attention:
_
"... I am not interested in the cut and deplore routine.
If you have something to say to standards of public
decency to children and women, David, write them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:40:30 GMT)
_
_
_
"...
I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing.
_
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup,
about 'standards of public decency to children
and women'. ..." - David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006
16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
_
"...
I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
_
I am not your boy! I already wrote a basis for an
approach - but no one seems actually interested
enough in the subject to engage it. ..." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
_
"It appears Mr. Innes is talking to himself again.
And what's more, he's taking offense at his own
words. How long until he accuses himself of
self-stalking?" - Neil Brennen (4 Apr 2006
16:53:19 -0700)

_
After reproducing the Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:40:30 GMT quote,
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:28:04 GMT):

Louis - are you trying to trivialise this issue

_
No.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:28:04 GMT):

- what sort of person are you with thesemindless repetitions? ...

_
The sort who thinks that it is worthwhile to remember some
incidents and describe them accurately.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...

"... I am not interested in the cut and deplore routine.
If you have something to say to standards of public
decency to children and women, David, write them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:40:30 GMT)

- what sort of person are you with thesemindless repetitions? ...

_
The sort who thinks that it is worthwhile to remember some
incidents and describe them accurately.

Don't just repeat it Louis, see if you can understand what it means -
otherwise you condemn yourself to being a trivial-dweeb who mentions
everything and understands nothing.

Unless you write to the point of an issue - your repetitions can otherwise
be completely ignored as literally pointless exercises in repeating what you
don't understand. [Blair on Nothing]

Phil Innes

WHY FISCHER FORFEITED HIS TITLE

One of Louie Blair's persistent gripes repeated ad nauseum
is that GM Evans didn't mention in Chess Life that FIDE finally
agreed to his unlimited match but there was a second meeting
where FIDE granted this demand but denied his 9-9 tie clause.
GM noted this fact at worldchessnetwork.com but that won't
stop the parser from regurgitating his drivel. No way. No how.

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....rder=0&thold=0

"Even if all his demands were met, would Fischer have played Karpov?
Nobody knows. When FIDE voted to restrict their tilt to 36 games, in
effect nullifying his open-ended match of ten wins with draws not
counting, Fischer vowed never again to play under FIDE jurisdiction.
This meant spurning a purse of $5 million offered by president Marcos
in the Philippines. FIDE relented and finally agreed to an unlimited
match, but this time around they balked at his 9-9 tie clause."

"Thus Fischer relinquished his crown and joined Howard Hughes and JD
Salinger in the great American void of absent legends.," noted THE
GUARDIAN.

I wrote (9 Jun 2006 06:51:10 -0700):
While looking at that old Innes-Hart-Kane-Kingston-Brennen
discussion, I came across part that deserves separate
attention:
_
"... I am not interested in the cut and deplore routine.
If you have something to say to standards of public
decency to children and women, David, write them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:40:30 GMT)
_
_
_
"...
I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing.
_
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup,
about 'standards of public decency to children
and women'. ..." - David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006
16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
_
"...
I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
_
I am not your boy! I already wrote a basis for an
approach - but no one seems actually interested
enough in the subject to engage it. ..." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
_
"It appears Mr. Innes is talking to himself again.
And what's more, he's taking offense at his own
words. How long until he accuses himself of
self-stalking?" - Neil Brennen (4 Apr 2006
16:53:19 -0700)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:28:04 GMT):
... what sort of person are you with thesemindless repetitions? ...
_
I wrote (9 Jun 2006 20:24:02 -0700):
The sort who thinks that it is worthwhile to remember some
incidents and describe them accurately.

_
I wrote (Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:08:18 GMT):

Don't just repeat it Louis, see if you can understand what it
means ...

_
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT, did Phil Innes understand
the meaning of what he quoted?