Did anyone on RGCP father Anna Nicole Smith's daughter? So far three
men claim to be the father. Anna ain't saying.

Old Haasie

wrote:
Did anyone on RGCP father Anna Nicole Smith's daughter? So far three
men claim to be the father. Anna ain't saying.

I think we can rule out Parr because he's too far away, Innes for lack
of interest, and Robtroll for lack of equipment.

wrote:
Did anyone on RGCP father Anna Nicole Smith's daughter? So far three
men claim to be the father. Anna ain't saying.

If Fred McMurray could have three sons, why can't Anna's son have
three fathers? Fair is fair.

The Historian wrote:
wrote:
Did anyone on RGCP father Anna Nicole Smith's daughter? So far three
men claim to be the father. Anna ain't saying.

I think we can rule out Parr because he's too far away, Innes for lack
of interest, and Robtroll for lack of equipment.
YRAT HAND

The Historian wrote:
wrote:
Did anyone on RGCP father Anna Nicole Smith's daughter? So far three
men claim to be the father. Anna ain't saying.

I think we can rule out Parr because he's too far away, Innes for lack
of interest, and Robtroll for lack of equipment.

YAAT HAND

Plonk!!

I plonked this troll a few weeks back ... but then unplonked him because
his messages (when responded to by other posters) seemed rather amusing.

But .... there is nothing amusing about Robtroll. This gent is in serious need
of therapy ... couch time ... real cuckoo.


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

The Historian wrote:
wrote:
Did anyone on RGCP father Anna Nicole Smith's daughter? So far three
men claim to be the father. Anna ain't saying.

I think we can rule out Parr because he's too far away, Innes for lack
of interest, and Robtroll for lack of equipment.

YAAT HAND

g4 wrote:
Plonk!!

I plonked this troll a few weeks back ... but then unplonked him because
his messages (when responded to by other posters) seemed rather amusing.

But .... there is nothing amusing about Robtroll. This gent is in serious need
of therapy ... couch time ... real cuckoo.

Robtroll is the T. O. of RGCP. Let's hope he doesn't swallow all the
Prozac in his bottle in one sitting.

The Historian wrote:
g4 wrote:
Plonk!!

I plonked this troll a few weeks back ... but then unplonked him because
his messages (when responded to by other posters) seemed rather amusing.

But .... there is nothing amusing about Robtroll. This gent is in serious need
of therapy ... couch time ... real cuckoo.

Robtroll is the T. O. of RGCP. Let's hope he doesn't swallow all the
Prozac in his bottle in one sitting.

Actually sold my sailboat a few years back. It wasn't a ship in a
bottle. Confused? Sure you are.
Now. When will you retract what you called Chessville?

Join the RobTroll Pledge Group!

People who DO NOT want to talk chess in a decent manner are encouraged to
sign up - you can contact G4 who is more famous for his great variety of
screen-names, and obsessive non-chess talk. Such wasteful and diversionary
nonsense!

-----------

Meanwhile, there are a few serious issues troubling the scholastics world in
chess, and indeed in very many forms of youth leadership in American life,
which have been addressed only to the degree of organisational liability -
and addressed with a false sense of confidence and assurance - since there
are existing law suits to do with Little League and the Boy Scouts which
have found against these institutions, either in neglecting their charges
entirely, or for failing to deploy existing safe-guards.

In the chess world there is virtually no address to this subject from the
abused person's point of view, as if the scholastic scene in chess were
nothing other than a market to which businesses make money, and have no
other responsibility to.

It is harder for non-profits to claim the same limited [and false sense of]
liability, yet in other forums this is precisely the case that has been
made, with USCF for example being argued to be a business, and that it
should proceed in respect of its market as other businesses do, and that it
has no other obligations whatever.

Nobody feels any pain - and some writers have committed thousands of words
to trivialise and divert the issue, and suggest why offenses against
children should not be fairly assessed by actually looking at the extent and
momentum of abused women and children.

Phil Innes
Vermont
29 September, 2006



"g4" wrote in message
...
Plonk!!

I plonked this troll a few weeks back ... but then unplonked him because
his messages (when responded to by other posters) seemed rather amusing.

But .... there is nothing amusing about Robtroll. This gent is in serious
need
of therapy ... couch time ... real cuckoo.


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

The Historian wrote:
wrote:
Did anyone on RGCP father Anna Nicole Smith's daughter? So far three
men claim to be the father. Anna ain't saying.

I think we can rule out Parr because he's too far away, Innes for lack
of interest, and Robtroll for lack of equipment.

YAAT HAND

Chess One wrote:
Join the RobTroll Pledge Group!

People who DO NOT want to talk chess in a decent manner are encouraged to
sign up - you can contact G4 who is more famous for his great variety of
screen-names, and obsessive non-chess talk. Such wasteful and diversionary
nonsense!

-----------

Meanwhile, there are a few serious issues troubling the scholastics world in
chess, and indeed in very many forms of youth leadership in American life,
which have been addressed only to the degree of organisational liability -
and addressed with a false sense of confidence and assurance - since there
are existing law suits to do with Little League and the Boy Scouts which
have found against these institutions, either in neglecting their charges
entirely, or for failing to deploy existing safe-guards.

In the chess world there is virtually no address to this subject from the
abused person's point of view, as if the scholastic scene in chess were
nothing other than a market to which businesses make money, and have no
other responsibility to.

It is harder for non-profits to claim the same limited [and false sense of]
liability, yet in other forums this is precisely the case that has been
made, with USCF for example being argued to be a business, and that it
should proceed in respect of its market as other businesses do, and that it
has no other obligations whatever.

Nobody feels any pain - and some writers have committed thousands of words
to trivialise and divert the issue, and suggest why offenses against
children should not be fairly assessed by actually looking at the extent and
momentum of abused women and children.

Phil Innes
Vermont
29 September, 2006



Snipped g4ashists and The HisTrollian's panderings

Phil,
Few here appear to be interested in honest discussions on real chess
issues.
this report:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=13205
which is only one of many that come up on a google search, points out
how great the liability exposure can be. It frustrates to see that
those most closely associates with organized chess refuse to
acknowledge that there is even a problem to address at all.
Rob