I wrote (31 Oct 2006 16:54:46 -0800):
7 I have been discussing
7
7 "... the possibility that some third party took
7 the contents of the [jamesrynd] newsgroup post,
7 added the 'Hello Phil' title, and sent it to Phil
7 Innes with a fake reply address ..." - Louis Blair
7 (28 Oct 2006 13:05:35 -0700)
7
7 "... Haven't we seen [posts with fake reply
7 addresses right here at [rgcp]?" - Louis
7 Blair (29 Oct 2006 12:31:14 -0800)
7 ...
_
I wrote (1 Nov 2006 08:51:29 -0800):
7 ...
7 "... I, of course, am not in a position to know
7 the motives of a hypothetical third party, but
7 one possible motive would be to stir up an
7 argument. Does Phil Innes deny that there
7 have been people who seemed to enjoy doing
7 that sort of thing? If causing an argument was
7 the motive, the third party has certainly
7 succeeded (perhaps beyond his wildest
7 dreams). ..." - Louis Blair (29 Oct 2006
7 16:08:09 -0800)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:53:16 GMT):
7 ... Dowd doesn't disown the post, which I would have
7 read same day anyway. ...
_
I wrote (1 Nov 2006 20:12:56 -0800):
7 ... But, thanks to Phil Innes complaining about receiving
7 an email, we have seen an argument that started more
7 than eleven weeks ago, and is still going on.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:51:45 GMT):

7 HEY! Earth to Pravda! I did not complain, I said.

_
It looked like a complaint to me.
_
"... You coward! You write me e-mails full of
paranoia from an address which cannot receive
a response. ..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 12 Aug 2006
21:15:03 GMT)
_
Complain or said, it was the start of an argument that
is nearing the end of its twelfth week.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:51:45 GMT):

7 40,000 words later, and he's still going...

_
"It is Phil Innes who brings up the subject of proof
[that he received 2 messages from Dowd]. Phil
Innes may prefer that others do not comment on
his proof claims, but he is not necessarily going to
get his wish. ..." - Louis Blair (31 Oct 2006
09:56:52 -0800)

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

"It is Phil Innes who brings up the subject of proof
[that he received 2 messages from Dowd]. Phil
Innes may prefer that others do not comment on
his proof claims, but he is not necessarily going to
get his wish. ..." - Louis Blair (31 Oct 2006
09:56:52 -0800)

I may prefer, suggests Louis, trying to retreat instead of ante-up. Blair in
effect calls me a liar, then retreats. I call him a coward.

How strange that SBD, or someone pretending to be as arrogant,
foul-tempered, ignorant, and so full of himself, he lectured me of a part of
Germany he had not been to [ROFL] but which I had - should have written me
this very day!

This no doubt false person finished his contribution to chess by saying that
he had blocked replies. How brave! I thought.

I expect Louis to demand proofs for ever more - while continuing to come up
with hypothetic possibilities of his own invention, increasingly
fantastical - just as he suggested to everyone here, including Matt who took
him seriously, that there was some permission to quote Kingston.

Was that a lie, or did he misunderstand Vaguer?

We have Louis's idea of falsifying an AOL account, and the other a what? An
untruth.

100,000 words from Louis on these two, and still nothing! No chess anyway.
I'll watch a few more of Louis's posts to see if he actually can bring
himself to say anything, rather than negatively suppose on others - but
either way - the guy is a ****.

Phil Innes

I wrote (2 Nov 2006 08:38:27 -0800):
7 "It is Phil Innes who brings up the subject of proof
7 [that he received 2 messages from Dowd]. Phil
7 Innes may prefer that others do not comment on
7 his proof claims, but he is not necessarily going to
7 get his wish. ..." - Louis Blair (31 Oct 2006
7 09:56:52 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 I may prefer, suggests Louis, trying to retreat

_
What specific position is it that I am supposedly
"retreat"ing from?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 instead of ante-up.

_
"What specific hypothesis is Phil Innes
expecting me to bet on, how specifically is
the hypothesis to be tested, and why should
I be expected to bet on it? ..." - Louis Blair
(28 Oct 2006 17:44:11 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 Blair in effect calls me a liar, then retreats.

_
Nonsense.
_
"... If [the possibility that I mentioned on
28 Oct 2006 13:05:35 -0700] is what
happened then Phil Innes did indeed receive
a message (from the third party) on August
12th. ..." - Louis Blair (31 Oct 2006
09:56:52 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 I call him a coward.

_
"... We can disagree. We can discuss.
We can still remain professional and cordial
as well. The incessant name calling does
nothing to promote,advance or elevate chess
in any way." - Rob Mitchell (21 Sep 2006
08:51:49 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 How strange that SBD, or someone pretending to be
7 as arrogant, foul-tempered, ignorant, and so full of
7 himself, he lectured me of a part of Germany he had
7 not been to [ROFL] but which I had - should have
7 written me this very day!
7
7 This no doubt false person finished his contribution
7 to chess by saying that he had blocked replies. How
7 brave! I thought.

_
I have been discussing
_
"... the possibility that some third party took
the contents of the [jamesrynd] newsgroup post,
added the 'Hello Phil' title, and sent it to Phil
Innes with a fake reply address ..." - Louis Blair
(28 Oct 2006 13:05:35 -0700)
_
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:24:59 GMT, Phil Innes told us,
"Here is the message I received August 12th." At the
end of this note, I have reproduced "the message" as
PI reported it at that time.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 I expect Louis to demand proofs for ever more

_
"It is Phil Innes who brings up the subject of proof
[that he received 2 messages from Dowd]. Phil
Innes may prefer that others do not comment on
his proof claims, but he is not necessarily going to
get his wish. ..." - Louis Blair (31 Oct 2006
09:56:52 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 - while continuing to come up with hypothetic
7 possibilities of his own invention, increasingly fantastical

_
"... Haven't we seen [posts with fake reply
addresses] right here at [rgcp]?" - Louis
Blair (29 Oct 2006 12:31:14 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 - just as he suggested to everyone here, including Matt
7 who took him seriously, that there was some permission
7 to quote Kingston.

_
That is categorically false. Phil Innes should apologize promptly.
It was MATT NEMMERS who tried to convince ME that Phil
Innes had permission.
_
"Louis, TK gave him permission. ..." - Matt
Nemmers (1 Nov 2006 22:09:48 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 Was that a lie, or did he misunderstand Vaguer?

_
Phil Innes writes as if he is pondering a quote, but,
of course, he does not produce a quote of the
supposed suggestion.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 We have Louis's idea of falsifying an AOL account,

_
I have been discussing
_
"... the possibility that some third party took
the contents of the [jamesrynd] newsgroup post,
added the 'Hello Phil' title, and sent it to Phil
Innes with a fake reply address ..." - Louis Blair
(28 Oct 2006 13:05:35 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 and the other a what? An untruth.

_
Not, of course, produced by Phil Innes.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 100,000 words from Louis on these two, and still
7 nothing! No chess anyway.

_
"It is Phil Innes who brings up the subject of proof
[that he received 2 messages from Dowd]. Phil
Innes may prefer that others do not comment on
his proof claims, but he is not necessarily going to
get his wish. ..." - Louis Blair (31 Oct 2006
09:56:52 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT):

7 I'll watch a few more of Louis's posts to see if he
7 actually can bring himself to say anything, rather
7 than negatively suppose on others - but either way
7 - the guy is a ****.

_
"... We can disagree. We can discuss.
We can still remain professional and cordial
as well. The incessant name calling does
nothing to promote,advance or elevate chess
in any way." - Rob Mitchell (21 Sep 2006
08:51:49 -0700)
_
_
_
"Here is the message I received August 12th."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:24:59 GMT)
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
I have been ill the last few days, so I haven't been in the ngs,
especially since I have an article to translate into German by next
week, a particularly difficult one of Grandmaster Janevski's on
paradoxes in the #2..

At first I was very taken by what I read and your invitation - even
though I never asked for one. It seemed sincere and genuine at first.

When I read this:

Since I seem to have accepted Dread Dowd's challenge not for a few
games but
a week of games, he himself backed off, and has never made any contact
-
which is much as I thought it would be. What you read here is just
noise
Randy, people who say much about themselves, and belittle others. These
are
hardly people to voluntarily associate with, no? Or has government
service
rendered you completely insensible to conducting conversation with
other
adults?

You still seem unable to understand that I never asked to play chess
against you, that was Larry Tapper.

It showed me what a total jackass you were still, despite your faux
offer of hospitality. It makes me very glad I didn't read the groups
for a few days to allow your true colors to show. Here you are,
"dissing" not just me but someone else in the same paragraph. The way
you lump people into categories it is no wonder you are such a bigot.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

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


*****************

It has been explained to Mr. Innes many times -- patiently, in
painstaking detail, repeatedly, by numerous people, and in words of as
few syllables as possible, in order to facilitate his possible
comprehension -- that a natural language is much more than its stock of
words. But since he persists in believing that when George W. Bush
utters the word "vodka," he is speaking Russian, it is scarcely
surprising that recondite subtleties such as grammatical structure and
syntax are utterly lost upon Mr. Innes.



--how unfortunate for Brennan that vodka IS a Russian word, with No English
alternate, and while this 'analogy' based on one word that he proposes is
itself utterly fatuous, it hardly contradicts some 45 words I posted being
perhaps the most famous words in the English language, American too! to talk
of grammatical structure of anglo saxon speech is a further travesty of
knowledge, not only because we do not have a clue what grammar any of the
six constitutent parts of A. Sax utilised, but it is an assumption
containing the HOWLER that people speek grammatically at any time, even now!

He will probably persist in
believing that we all speak Anglo-Saxon, despite our best efforts to
enlighten him.

-- I have no need to 'believe' anything! What hads belief to do with
knwoledge? The hundred most popular words in English are ALL Anglo Saxon
words. This is not a matter of belief as it is to Mr. Brennan, who does
without facts entirely to re-write his histories of all things.

-- As you can see below, the fact of extant Anglo Saxon in the English
language is compared by this fascist dolt of a mathematician with the
question - if they speak Latin in Paris? This, by all accounts, is a
compelling reason for Brennan to 'believe' something about the language he
himself speaks.

-- None of this material has anything to do with English language
etymologies, but is the considered opinion of those who have not actually
considered the subject [!] but brave their opinions in case you, dear
reader, are also ignorant as sin.

Phil Innes

------



But to paraphrase a distinguished mathematician (who
opined that visualizing geometric objects in three-dimensional space is
impossible, so eight dimensions is no harder), when one cannot even
speak Modern English, perhaps speaking Anglo-Saxon seems no harder.

***************

I find it hard to believe that even on hlas we have quite such an
imbecile
among us. If you *really* need it spelt out, moron, ask yourself
whether
the inhabitants of modern Paris speak Latin. For homework, try to work
out
what this question has to do with your cretinous "thesis".

***************

I am not quite sure what contention there is in this post between Brennan
and two of the foremost writers on English language and British
anthropology, and since as ever, he objects without addressing the subject,
shall I let this pass, since it in any case happened in another newsgroup?
Or do people actually think this form of objection to knowledge itself
worthy of public writing?

Phil Innes

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

wrote:
The Historian wrote:
wrote:
... to say nothing of your ignorance of languages, one of the most
fantastic threads I have ever read)

Stop by hlas and read the current Innes thread on Old English (what
Innes calls "A. Sax") as a living language. The man cannot understand
that a language is not the same as its lexicon!

I can't speak on old English,

But then read, and be amazed! I've included two brief responses to the
Innesian nonsense.

***************
One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind. //Neil Armstrong.

I should like noted that these phrases contain 100% Anglo Saxon words,
and
so it came to be that the first loangauge spoken on the Moon was A.
Sax.

Should this be considered a fluke, some lucky chance? then let us
consider
perhaps the most famous actual speech of all time! Not something from a
book, but something from life, and shared with all the people hearing
it as
ordinary language of the time, albeit delivered with the prowess of an
orator.

We shall fight on the beaches;
We shall fight on the landing-frounds;
We shall fight in the fields and the streets;
We shall fight in the hills;
We shall never surrender.

It is merely ironic that the only word in those sentences which is NOT
A.
Sax is 'surrender', which is borrowed into later English from French.

----------
So not only was Anglo Saxon the first language spoken on the Moon, it
was
the basic language of the Islands in the C20th. It was the principle
and
primary language without regional deviation, and it had been so for
some
1500 years. Properly it should be said, since the past 1000 years,
since
Englisc and the language [Norse] spoken in the Danelaw were not
congruous
until about the year 1000 - though perforce many nouns were common
before
that time.

I make no direct challenge to those who have said otherwise of these
points,
except to state these facts, and proceed not to argue with people who
can
know nothing, but to two aspects which relate to this continuity of
Englisc,
one being the technical aspect of which language the Author chose to
innovate upon, if indeed it was A. Norman or A. Saxon as Chaucer used,
or
bot?

Which word does the reader prefer in ordinary speech?

Englisc Norse

rear raise [a child]
wish want
craft skill
hide skin

The second aspect will be to revist what passes for authority in these
discussion of history and authorship, especially of received or implied
authority, not actually demonstrated as much as asserted, and the very
great
merit of challenging it!

I finish with a statistic, that computer analysis reveals that
currently,
the 100 most used words in the English langauge are ALL Anglo Saxon.

Cordially, Phil Innes

*****************

It has been explained to Mr. Innes many times -- patiently, in
painstaking detail, repeatedly, by numerous people, and in words of as
few syllables as possible, in order to facilitate his possible
comprehension -- that a natural language is much more than its stock of
words. But since he persists in believing that when George W. Bush
utters the word "vodka," he is speaking Russian, it is scarcely
surprising that recondite subtleties such as grammatical structure and
syntax are utterly lost upon Mr. Innes. He will probably persist in
believing that we all speak Anglo-Saxon, despite our best efforts to
enlighten him. But to paraphrase a distinguished mathematician (who
opined that visualizing geometric objects in three-dimensional space is
impossible, so eight dimensions is no harder), when one cannot even
speak Modern English, perhaps speaking Anglo-Saxon seems no harder.

***************

I find it hard to believe that even on hlas we have quite such an
imbecile
among us. If you *really* need it spelt out, moron, ask yourself
whether
the inhabitants of modern Paris speak Latin. For homework, try to work
out
what this question has to do with your cretinous "thesis".

***************

but I can on Schwaebisch, which he
claimed to be an "unwritten dialect." If so, one wonders how the
following dictionary can be bought at Amazon.de, published by the famed
Langenscheidt company:

Langenscheidt Lilliput Wörterbücher, Dialektbände, Schwäbisch
(Broschiert)
von Susanne Brudermüller .

It must be really sad to have to just make up things to try to appear
as an authority.

Here Dr Dowd of Univ Alabama, last and least in the Union, is reminded of
something analogous, but cannot bring himself to a specific, certainly not
on chess. Perhaps it is his own writing and that of Ezra Pound for
Mussolini?

His recent activity is to send **** mail to people's e-mails then announce
at the end, a blocked response. His writing is full of negative speculations
not in the least born by what any one actually says, since they are never
even indicated, and this is his 'posture' in open dialog in public
newsgroups.

Phil Innes


wrote in message
ps.com...

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Seriously, this is the reverse of the Glendower-Hotspur situation.
Innes has not called for these dictionaries from the vasty deep, but
they have come!

Well, his usual tactic is to brush it then aside as "nothing to do with
chess." Of course, it is something *he* started, and is insistent on
until people who know better call him on it.

What he does not seem to realize is that it is a matter of overall
veracity. He's been caught lying on so many subjects, chess-related and
non chess-related, so many times, that it's hard to believe that any
person can give credibility to anything he sputters forth. Such lying
doesn't just show a lack of knowledge - we all lack knowledge in
certain areas - it also shows an insistence to pretend to have greater
knowledge than others so he can appear as an authority.

It reminds one of one of the "joke" definitions for insanity - doing
the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. He
doesn't seem to care that his lies have been exposed over and over
again - he will simply repeat them as if they were fact. Perhaps, to
him, they are. If so, it means he cannot differentiate "Phil's world"
and "Phil's opinion" from the real world and actual facts. I will leave
others to draw their own conclusions on what that means.