wrote:
Chess One wrote:

The only difficulty in a libel is having to prove that such material was
taken seriously by anyone. But, who knows who reads what on usenet? PI.


Bzzt. Wrong again. Jerry Falwell certainly took Hustler's proclaimation
that he "screwed his mother in an outhouse" seriously, but was unable
to win his libel case. Who read it didn't matter, what did matter was
whether a *reasonable person* would believe it.

And I hate to tell you this, Phil, but neither you or Rob would be the
example of a "reasonable person." To say nothing of trying to prove
harm...

But the Prozac boat bit was great; Rob couldn't have looked sillier if
he stepped in a bucket and fell down a flight of stairs.

And best of all, Mitchell carefully placed the bucket so HE could trip
on it! Does he honestly expect anyone to believe that when he posted to
a depression newsgroup about Prozac that he was talking about a
sailboat?

It's amazing
to see him posting about Neil "dying a lonely, unwanted man in his
little apartment" one day and then accusing him of libel in such a
short time. If anything, Neil has been the model of decorum while Rob
continues to hassle him.

Thank you.

His obsession with him might be seen by a Freudian as homoerotic desire.

The Historian wrote:
wrote:
Chess One wrote:

The only difficulty in a libel is having to prove that such material was
taken seriously by anyone. But, who knows who reads what on usenet? PI.


Bzzt. Wrong again. Jerry Falwell certainly took Hustler's proclaimation
that he "screwed his mother in an outhouse" seriously, but was unable
to win his libel case. Who read it didn't matter, what did matter was
whether a *reasonable person* would believe it.

And I hate to tell you this, Phil, but neither you or Rob would be the
example of a "reasonable person." To say nothing of trying to prove
harm...

But the Prozac boat bit was great;

Yes it was

And best of all, Mitchell carefully placed the bucket so HE could trip
on it! Does he honestly expect anyone to believe that when he posted to
a newsgroup about Prozac that he was talking about a
sailboat?

What is amazing is I carefully made only one planned post to that
group. After doing so, you followed me there to a group you had never
posted in before, to troll me. I knew you would do it Neil. I also
waited for you to repete your false claims on more than one occassion.

What I expect is a full public retraction .
It's amazing


Yes it is
Thank you.

His obsession with him might be seen by a Freudian as homoerotic desire.

Rob wrote:

What I expect is a full public retraction .

I imagine, since he has taken the high road so far, and you have taken
the low road, your full public retraction of your hateful statements
and harassment would be expected. In fact, the one time he did slip up
- only after your constant provocation - he quickly apologized.

It is too bad you have such an obsession, especially one based on such
empty hatred. It was funny for awhile to watch your constant efforts to
mount a Fool's mate against his Sicilian, to offer a chess analogy, now
it is simply painful. That you feel a need to make him suffer is sad;
your pitiful attempts at doing so makes one wonder who will die alone
and unwanted? The kind of hatred you exhibit takes on a life of its own
and ruins a man, not his target.

Rob wrote:

Steve, I wouldn't say that about Neil. But you may and he can come
after you legally.

Ah yes, the old, "I'm rubber and you're glue" turnaround. Favored by
eight year old schoolgirls around the world.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ps.com...
Taylor Kingston wrote (23 Oct 2006 16:00:52 -0700):
7 ... it was fun for a while to defeat Sanny's clueless chess
7 engine over and over. ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:56:12 GMT):

7 Good God! Kingston has played tons of games against a
7 1200 rated engine, to prove his manhood or something, or
7 what would this public boasting mean? ...

_
How does Phil Innes read "boasting" or "prov"ing "manhood"
into the above?

Yes, Louis may be right. Maybe its not boasting to mention this level of
skill, though I am not sure what other motive there could be since my
electric toaster could beat it blindfold.

The reference by Taylor Kingston himself
to a "clueless chess engine" would seem to me to contradict
this idea.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:56:12 GMT):

7 ... now an expert on 'psychiatric copyright', ...

_
Where is this supposed "psychiatric copyright" quote to be
found?

Its a figure of speech Louis, not to be confused with numbers, which as you
well know, are also called figures. Let me advise you of one other thing
which you may not suspect, and that is the inverse protocol of US quoted
speech to the rest of the world. This has to do with two other figures;

this little one --- '
and this slightly larger one -- "

Except for both these missaprehensions on protocol of quoting speech, and
also figuring in a language which is a device which offers a sometimes
colourful paraphrastic sense of an issue, especially reducing long-winded
blather to an epithetical couplet, then Louis's question could be answered.

ONCE AGAIN, TO THE BRITCHES!

I have no idea why another 6 paragraphs followed this poor start, but they
all seem to be based on what Taylor Kingston misunderstood. I personally
have no idea if the 'complaint' had to do with Kingston alone or with other
Chesscafe material.

I did say that Tomic made an accusation that it was not all original
material, and therefore not originally copyrightable by either Kingston or
Chesscafe. I don't know if he meant some or all, and I also don't know if
its true. I just said he said it.

These are very simple statements.

To rant on about similar statements, and what is 'imagined' to be meant, is
a peculiar and idiosyncratic indulgence by those who think others insane,
and so on,

FATALLY COMBINE WITH...

a little paranoia read into this plain language, and all sorts of stuff
comes out of the belfry; not excluding the hearing of demonic cadences, and
worse, the dreaded New Jersey accent.

Phil Innes

wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:

The only difficulty in a libel is having to prove that such material was
taken seriously by anyone. But, who knows who reads what on usenet? PI.


Bzzt. Wrong again. Jerry Falwell certainly took Hustler's proclaimation
that he "screwed his mother in an outhouse" seriously, but was unable
to win his libel case. Who read it didn't matter, what did matter was
whether a *reasonable person* would believe it.

Would any case like this be comparable to the great American figures of our
day such as Falwell and Hustler Mag? And would a reasonable person believe
Neil Brennan? They would have to first concur that he himself was acting in
a reasonable way, no? Let's see...

And I hate to tell you this, Phil,

What a cant and supercilious trope. Since it is, on its face, untrue. Not a
good start when the subject is 'reason'.

but neither you or Rob would be the
example of a "reasonable person." To say nothing of trying to prove
harm...

Let's see below what 'reasonable' could mean in any context of this issue:

But the Prozac boat bit was great; Rob couldn't have looked sillier if
he stepped in a bucket and fell down a flight of stairs. It's amazing
to see him posting about Neil "dying a lonely, unwanted man in his
little apartment"

Like Alekhine, only transposed to PA! violins or maybe that's not so
appropriate tubas? And why should he write this, if not for this:

'Reasonable' Neil suspected that the ZED program he accessed was actually
me! No matter what time of day or night he interacted with it, and its
virtually instantaneous responses. Neil failed a Turing test! Or rather ZED
passed one.

one day and then accusing him of libel in such a
short time. If anything, Neil has been the model of decorum while Rob
continues to hassle him.

This Very Model of a Modern Major Reasonable Person has accused Rob of
plagiarising music and cheating insurance clients. That's a standard, sure.
It is unclearly a true statement by virtue of not being accompanied by any
facts. I would say that truly reasonable people would be suspicious, right
there! The same where you are?

Its not quite so reasonable as airing the possibility that I may be a
murderer. Perhaps it is some sort of basis or reasonableness taught at your
university, since you do not seem to require other than an assertion. So
much for reason.

His obsession with him might be seen by a Freudian as homoerotic desire.

But how would you know what a 'Freudian' [laugh] might see? And as for
homoerotic desire, pfft! its interesting that you suggest it, but I think
you make a Freudian slut!

So when issues emerge at your university and someone talks of reason, are
these the sort of reactions you have? Do you usually ignore one side of
things entirely, and issue your own views on a blatantly partisan basis?

Do you at any time, in a phrase, resort to facts?

Cordially, Phil Innes
The Hippocampus, Vermont

PS: What society or institution is this you represent as being so reasonably
constituted? If it is not of your University, is this of your confreres at
the laundry?

Chess One wrote:

So when issues emerge at your university and someone talks of reason, are
these the sort of reactions you have? Do you usually ignore one side of
things entirely, and issue your own views on a blatantly partisan basis?


Of course not. In such cases I am dealing with rational folks who have
no need to fabricate issues and evidence, make up languages that don't
exist, speak of dialects of which they know nothing, and are not
constantly in attack mode.

In short, the opposite of what one gets from you. You spend much time
talking about reason; you don't practice it very often. There are, of
course, a few twits like you in academia, but they rapidly are
marginalized and moved to the fringes where they cannot do much harm.
Or better yet fired, as I was once able to do with a fool like you, who
when asked by the students questions he could not answer, didn't have
the sense to appear human and say, "I don't know," but instead made up
answers so he could appear as ultimate authority. That sort of
behavior, in teaching, is unacceptable. It is your bread-and-butter.

In USENET, you can sit there and make up whatever you want, which I
suppose massages your frail ego, but don't expect anyone using even 1%
of their brain to believe it.

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:27:21 GMT):

7 ... I personally have no idea if the 'complaint' had to do with
7 Kingston alone or with other Chesscafe material.
7
7 I did say that Tomic made an accusation that it was not all
7 original material, and therefore not originally copyrightable by
7 either Kingston or Chesscafe. I don't know if he meant some
7 or all, and I also don't know if its true. I just said he said it.
....

_
Phil Innes wrote more than that.
_
"... Goran Tomic's unauthorized use of Serbian
translations of copyrighted ChessCafe articles,
including some of mine, for his web-site a few
years ago. ..." - Taylor Kingston (20 Oct 2006
08:04:16 -0700)
_
"Taylor Kingston //of cource// omits to mention
that Tomic said that the materials were not native
to Chesscafe, and were themselves a breach of
copyright by the same means he then describes
below. By agreeing to such one-sided attitudes
to copyright, he unwittingly achieves a liability
against chesscafe. ..." - Phil Innes (Sat,
21 Oct 2006 20:53:55 GMT)
_
Some points to note about the Phil Innes comment:
_
(1) Phil Innes referred to "the materials" as if
he were writing about the same materials mentioned
by Taylor Kingston - materials that included
articles written by Taylor Kingston for ChessCafe.
Later (Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:51:08 GMT), Phil Innes
admitted that he did not know if Taylor Kingston's
work "was all or some or none of the material to
which [Tomic] referred".
_
(2) Phil Innes considered it worth noting that Taylor
Kingston omitted what "Tomic said", although he
later (Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:51:08 GMT) admitted
that he did not know "either the extent nor the verity
of [Tomic's] statement". If the statement lacks "verity"
with regard to "the materials" mentioned by Taylor
Kingston, why should he have mentioned it?
_
(3) Without any "Tomic said" qualification, Phil Innes
referred to "one-sided attitudes to copyright". Is there
any reason to suppose "one-sided attitudes to copyright"
if the "verity" of Tomic's statement is unknown?
_
(4) Without any "Tomic said" qualification, Phil Innes
indicated that "a liability against chesscafe" was
"achieve"d. Is there any reason to suppose "a liability
against chesscafe" was "achieve"d if the "verity" of
Tomic's statement is unknown?

"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
But the Prozac boat bit was great;

It was a "poisoned pawn" I just floated out there for a troll to find.

A poisoned prawn boat.

has anyone yet made any claim to injury in this affaire-prawn?

its cold here, but i'm painting a new bookcase outside since we are in usual
storage crisis, pre-cutting some heavy dimensioned wood, and outside because
the house windows are closed, and its okay to paint until it snows, no? and
it is snowing, but not very much - i do hope my wife likes the colour - its
actually a light blue stain, and achieves a bleached effect - anyway, we can
put the heavy books on it which are currently distressing more modest
shelving. the dog is now clean since bath yeasterday [annual] and had a few
celebratory rolls in stuff this morning - i have a theory hound dogs do this
to disguise their own scent. many of the geese seem to have took-off south,
but the lake hasn't any ice on it yet. the heron pair are still around, and
the osprey might be, but is a shy bird

-- these things don't have to do with chess particularly, but without
them, what is the sense of anything? --

on the chess front in a tournament i have conned a strongish player in a
benoni, overloading his queen to now win a piece, but in our other game with
white my invention in a winawer french is less clear! i improvised an early
gambit and got his king stuck in the middle, but can i get level again soon?
if so, a win, since i can crash the middle, and he is defending his pawn,
not his 'soul' grin, but how to do it escapes me... ? so i try to make
complications

it was good this week to help out one set of indian folks who were promoting
their talk64 software, a philanthropy, i think, for unsighted players, and
also another researcher from who a friend put me in touch, who is
considering a PhD thesis in chess - i think this will be most interesting
and have offered her various introductions to people who could help
encourage that work

then again i may have found a new columnist for a popular subject which
needs reviving! it seems eminently sponsorable, and for a subject of
perenial interest to chess players - short histories and mini-bios. its a
shame that sam sloan's efforts dissapeared from wikipedia, even though they
were often more than somewhat self-indulgent and needed serious trimming,
nevertheless the corpus of his work was good

we have lost a sponsor, but have 'a spare', who can now perhaps participate

paypal is a bit weird on the trading side. is it true that it has a $500
limit? what's good about paypal is that no credit card information on the
purchaser is collected, and this makes for security for thge buyer and
seller

there is a heap of material to review, journalistically, or as sales review,
and i just took on another major title. someone who was to send digital
material hasn't done so, and i will have to tell them again that christmas
is coming

switching to direct sales has had its challenges, and while everyone has
wanted to go fast with us, supplying materials for the christmas season is
going slow - but i don't know enough about the seasonal market in chess
materials specifically to know if very significant sales are lost by
delaying til the new year. maybe not in this specialised market?

sometime this afternoon i will get my head out of the chess scene and do
something entirely different, probably listening to more simon schama on
british history and also attenborough on the formation of the bbc and his
role in it - these are two extensive tape sets, and i am interested in both,
and will listen while porcupining a lamb roast, and setting it into a mint
and sage bed, 'provencal' with lemon and good olive oil

over 1/3 of the column is already written by wednesday which is a good
start, with 1000 words to go

why write about such ordinary things in such a muddle? i sometimes think
that people here are overattracted to various fastasies and phantoms of each
other they vociferously maintain, and really lack any sense or care of each
other as real human beings

how sad, really

but all is well, all is very well

cordially, phil innes

On 24 Oct 2006 20:18:57 -0700, "Rob" wrote:


...Does he honestly expect anyone to believe that when he posted to
a newsgroup about Prozac that he was talking about a
sailboat?

What is amazing is I carefully made only one planned post to that
group. After doing so, you followed me there to a group you had never
posted in before, to troll me. I knew you would do it Neil. I also
waited for you to repete your false claims on more than one occassion.

OK, Rob, here's your chance to make 'em eat their words. Upload pics
of your boat and registration info to your website and post a link.