"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...

Another lie. I require evidence in support of a scandal, is all. Two
apolgies you owe me.

Very sad ending to "?" 's reputation, I think.
Oh, I forgot, "?"'s reputation could only improve if it ended.... LOL
my-bad!

Well, there are those who would disagree with that assessment of my
assessment of Phil Innes' posting record:

Louis Blair, Engineer, Kenneth Sloan, Chess Freak, Guy Macon, Greg
Kennedy, Christopher Mattern, rexartu..., Taylor Kingston, Neil
Brennen, Steve Dowd, Mike Murray, James Rynd, Matt Nemmers, David
Richerby, Mark Wing, Henri H. Arsenault, vkarlamov, Wick Deer, Larry
Tapper, g4, Tom Martinak, Randy Bauer, Vince Hart, Don Schultz, Bill
Brock, David Kane, Joel Channing, parker.r..., sivad..., Stan Booz,...

Get with the program, or go away, TROLL.

What Mark Houlsby does not mention is his own need to understand anything,
while he combines his 'request' with such terms as '****wit'. This may be
normal where he is, but I don't think this is so very likely, do you?

If Houlesby had said why he was interested in the subject, and why he could
not scan the information himself, or even why he couldn't ask those who
could, then this would establish something.

As it is, because he can't condescend to do any of these, he argues and
concludes from a position of ignorance of which he is profoundly proud - and
which demands others fulfill - or else!

When a question of what is a scandal is put to him, he replies with two
answers; the one in the dictionary, then his own version which is at odds
with the dictionary

He then refuses to acknowledge that handing out awards without any
accounting is at all strange to his vast experience of the world, and
disregards that USCF members /do/ think its strange! which was the essence
of this post.

This is why Rob Mitchell is called a 'troll' - not for agreement with what I
wrote, but for not pretending the forum comments do not exist - and for
wanting to discuss tehm! Quite normal activities in a chess politics
newsgroup.

Holesby has displayed no curiosity to the content whatever, and is here to
show off his command of a singular adjective which he also deploys as
adverb, noun and verb. I suppose when school starts agains he will f.. f..
f.. fade away?

Phil Innes

Mark Houlsby

Rob

Louis Blair wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote (30 Dec 2006 13:43:42 -0800):

7 ... What I didn't understand was why you posted them
7 in a reply to me....

_
Your note was the last one in the thread at the time.

Ahh...ok. So it's entirely random, you just add evidence to whatever
post is dangling. First time I've noticed the phenomenon. Clearly, I
mustn't've been paying attention.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Mark

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 ... I am seeking identification of specific examples of
7 the moderator behavior to which Phil Innes objects. I
7 am also seeking a specific identification of the supposed
7 "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner".
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
7 announcements ... I already wrote these references
7 and Blair cut them. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Dec 2006 07:26:50 -0800):
7 There are many posts and announcements on USCF's
7 website. Looking there does not tell us to which *_specific_*
7 posts and/or announcements you refer.
7 ...
7 I already wrote these references ...
7
7 You did no such thing. You have never specified what
7 you are referring to. You have not said what you
7 considered "rash and offensive abuse of speech," nor
7 what you considered "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner."
7
7 and Blair cut them.
7
7 Nonsense. Blair cannot cut what was never there. He
7 cannot even cut what _is_ there, because your original
7 posts are still there, exactly as you wrote them. And
7 they contain none of the information you claim they do.
7 ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:09:20 GMT):
7 ... What information? Be specific otherwise you are
7 merely Vaguer-than-thou! If you can't find this material
7 at USCF's forum, jovially known as Nolanland, then I
7 say you are not looking very hard. Lots of other people
7 found it, so you must consider that it is you, not me. ...
_
I wrote (29 Dec 2006 14:29:00 -0800):
7 Who specifically knew what supposed moderator
7 misbehavior Phil Innes was referring to, before Phil Innes
7 revealed that he was referring to Herbert Vaughn (who is
7 not the moderator) as the moderator? Who, even now,
7 knows what supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner" was being mentioned by Phil Innes?
7
7 About two weeks ago, I wrote:
7
7 "... I have seen an 'announcements' page
7 that contained a link for details about the
7 recent resignation. Is that where the
7 supposedly 'less-than-honest reporting
7 about Tanner' can be accessed? (The
7 'report' begins: 'On Dec. 4, 2006, USCF
7 Executive Board Secretary Robert B.
7 Tanner resigned. ...')
7
7 Would Phil Innes care to be specific about
7 which previous Phil Innes note supposedly
7 referred to 'their public announcements'? ..."
7 - Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800)
7
7 I still have not seen Phil Innes answer those questions.

_
Snipping all but the last line above,
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:44:58 GMT):

7 Perhaps they could therefore be made more prominent,
7 and not at the end of another thousand word message
7 in duplicate.

_
If Phil Innes could find his way to the last line of my note,
he is certainly capable of finding the questions that were
just above it. Moreover, some of the questions were
reproduced from my shorter 15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800
note and still not answered by Phil Innes.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:44:58 GMT):

7 And they could also say why they are being requested
7 after being cut by the requestor!

_
Phil Innes, of course, is not clear and specific about what
was supposedly cut, when it was cut, and from what it was
cut.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:44:58 GMT):

7 In short - who are you kidding Blair? What do you care
7 for the issue - you forgot to say.

_
"... We learned [that Phil Innes was referring to
Herbert Vaughn as the moderator] by seeking
specifics from Phil Innes. Phil Innes may
consider it to be a waste of time for us to learn
such things, but I disagree. After all, Herbert
Vaughn is not the moderator. ..." - Louis Blair
(17 Dec 2006 13:37:28 -0800)
_
"... My current interest, at the moment, is to
correct the misleading Phil Innes statements."
- Louis Blair (17 Dec 2006 14:58:58 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:44:58 GMT):

7 I have still not seen answers to questions put to you
7 about Morphy, which you state you do not feel obliged
7 to answer. Let your own standard be your guide, unless
7 your response is a formal plea for double standards.

_
My standard is that one should be prepared to be
specific about the charge and the evidence when making
a public attack. Asking for such specifics does not
oblige one to respond to every random question that
comes along.

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 ... I am seeking identification of specific examples of
7 the moderator behavior to which Phil Innes objects. I
7 am also seeking a specific identification of the supposed
7 "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner".
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
7 announcements ... I already wrote these references
7 and Blair cut them. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Dec 2006 07:26:50 -0800):
7 There are many posts and announcements on USCF's
7 website. Looking there does not tell us to which *_specific_*
7 posts and/or announcements you refer.
7 ...
7 I already wrote these references ...
7
7 You did no such thing. You have never specified what
7 you are referring to. You have not said what you
7 considered "rash and offensive abuse of speech," nor
7 what you considered "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner."
7
7 and Blair cut them.
7
7 Nonsense. Blair cannot cut what was never there. He
7 cannot even cut what _is_ there, because your original
7 posts are still there, exactly as you wrote them. And
7 they contain none of the information you claim they do.
7 ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:09:20 GMT):
7 ... What information? Be specific otherwise you are
7 merely Vaguer-than-thou! If you can't find this material
7 at USCF's forum, jovially known as Nolanland, then I
7 say you are not looking very hard. Lots of other people
7 found it, so you must consider that it is you, not me. ...
_
I wrote (29 Dec 2006 14:29:00 -0800):
7 ... Who specifically knew what supposed moderator
7 misbehavior Phil Innes was referring to, before Phil Innes
7 revealed that he was referring to Herbert Vaughn (who is
7 not the moderator) as the moderator? Who, even now,
7 knows what supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner" was being mentioned by Phil Innes?
7
7 About two weeks ago, I wrote:
7
7 "... I have seen an 'announcements' page
7 that contained a link for details about the
7 recent resignation. Is that where the
7 supposedly 'less-than-honest reporting
7 about Tanner' can be accessed? (The
7 'report' begins: 'On Dec. 4, 2006, USCF
7 Executive Board Secretary Robert B.
7 Tanner resigned. ...')
7
7 Would Phil Innes care to be specific about
7 which previous Phil Innes note supposedly
7 referred to 'their public announcements'? ..."
7 - Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800)
7
7 I still have not seen Phil Innes answer those questions.

_
Snipping all but the last line above,
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:44:58 GMT):

7 Perhaps they could therefore be made more prominent,
7 and not at the end of another thousand word message
7 in duplicate.

_
If Phil Innes could find his way to the last line of my note,
he is certainly capable of finding the questions that were
just above it. Moreover, some of the questions were
reproduced from my shorter 15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800
note and still not answered by Phil Innes.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:44:58 GMT):

7 And they could also say why they are being requested
7 after being cut by the requestor!

_
Phil Innes, of course, is not clear and specific about what
was supposedly cut, when it was cut, and from what it was
cut.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:44:58 GMT):

7 In short - who are you kidding Blair? What do you care
7 for the issue - you forgot to say.

_
"... We learned [that Phil Innes was referring to
Herbert Vaughn as the moderator] by seeking
specifics from Phil Innes. Phil Innes may
consider it to be a waste of time for us to learn
such things, but I disagree. After all, Herbert
Vaughn is not the moderator. ..." - Louis Blair
(17 Dec 2006 13:37:28 -0800)
_
"... My current interest, at the moment, is to
correct the misleading Phil Innes statements."
- Louis Blair (17 Dec 2006 14:58:58 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:44:58 GMT):

7 I have still not seen answers to questions put to you
7 about Morphy, which you state you do not feel obliged
7 to answer. Let your own standard be your guide, unless
7 your response is a formal plea for double standards.

_
My standard is that one should be prepared to be
specific about the charge and the evidence when making
a public attack. Asking for such specifics does not
oblige one to respond to every random question that
comes along.

On 30 Dec 2006 13:58:01 -0800, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:


Once again, dimwit: it is IMPOSSIBLE to cut messages from Usenet. They
stay in the Google archive. The proverbial immovable object.

As I understand it, it would be more correct to say one cannot *count*
on messages disappearing from Usenet, although some news servers
(Google among them) will honor the originator's requests that they be
deleted. Of course, even this won't remove portions of a post quoted
in another post.

Mike Murray wrote:

On 30 Dec 2006 13:58:01 -0800, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:


Once again, dimwit: it is IMPOSSIBLE to cut messages from Usenet. They
stay in the Google archive. The proverbial immovable object.

As I understand it, it would be more correct to say one cannot *count*
on messages disappearing from Usenet, although some news servers
(Google among them) will honor the originator's requests that they be
deleted. Of course, even this won't remove portions of a post quoted
in another post.

That is certainly true, Mike, and it's an important clarification.
However, it's evident that the "cutting" to which Innes is referring
happened to writing that was never on Google, but rather existed only
in Innes' rather addled mind.

Thanks for taking the trouble to post.

Louis Blair wrote:

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 ... I am seeking identification of specific examples of
7 the moderator behavior to which Phil Innes objects. I
7 am also seeking a specific identification of the supposed
7 "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner".
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
7 announcements ... I already wrote these references
7 and Blair cut them. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Dec 2006 07:26:50 -0800):
7 There are many posts and announcements on USCF's
7 website. Looking there does not tell us to which *_specific_*
7 posts and/or announcements you refer.
7 ...
7 I already wrote these references ...
7
7 You did no such thing. You have never specified what
7 you are referring to. You have not said what you
7 considered "rash and offensive abuse of speech," nor
7 what you considered "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner."
7
7 and Blair cut them.
7
7 Nonsense. Blair cannot cut what was never there. He
7 cannot even cut what _is_ there, because your original
7 posts are still there, exactly as you wrote them. And
7 they contain none of the information you claim they do.
7 ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:09:20 GMT):
7 ... What information? Be specific otherwise you are
7 merely Vaguer-than-thou! If you can't find this material
7 at USCF's forum, jovially known as Nolanland, then I
7 say you are not looking very hard. Lots of other people
7 found it, so you must consider that it is you, not me. ...
_
I wrote (29 Dec 2006 14:29:00 -0800):
7 ... Who specifically knew what supposed moderator
7 misbehavior Phil Innes was referring to, before Phil Innes
7 revealed that he was referring to Herbert Vaughn (who is
7 not the moderator) as the moderator? Who, even now,
7 knows what supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner" was being mentioned by Phil Innes?
7
7 About two weeks ago, I wrote:
7
7 "... I have seen an 'announcements' page
7 that contained a link for details about the
7 recent resignation. Is that where the
7 supposedly 'less-than-honest reporting
7 about Tanner' can be accessed? (The
7 'report' begins: 'On Dec. 4, 2006, USCF
7 Executive Board Secretary Robert B.
7 Tanner resigned. ...')
7
7 Would Phil Innes care to be specific about
7 which previous Phil Innes note supposedly
7 referred to 'their public announcements'? ..."
7 - Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800)
7
7 I still have not seen Phil Innes answer those questions.

_
Snipping all but the last line above,
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:44:58 GMT):

7 Perhaps they could therefore be made more prominent,
7 and not at the end of another thousand word message
7 in duplicate.

_
If Phil Innes could find his way to the last line of my note,
he is certainly capable of finding the questions that were
just above it. Moreover, some of the questions were
reproduced from my shorter 15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800
note and still not answered by Phil Innes.


It seems to me that--at least as far as Phil Innes is concerned--it is
very dangerous to suggest that he is "certainly capable" of anything at
all. Even breathing may cause him difficulty during episodes of
apoplexy to which, evidently, he is rather prone.

Just a thought.

snippety-snip
_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:44:58 GMT):

7 I have still not seen answers to questions put to you
7 about Morphy, which you state you do not feel obliged
7 to answer. Let your own standard be your guide, unless
7 your response is a formal plea for double standards.

_
My standard is that one should be prepared to be
specific about the charge and the evidence when making
a public attack. Asking for such specifics does not
oblige one to respond to every random question that
comes along.

Again, this is unlikely to penetrate our Phil's thick skull. I already
explained it to him, albeit in a distinctly different style.

Perhaps Paul Simon's "The Boxer" is his favourite song.

("All lies and jest to a man who hears
What he wants to hear
And he disregards the rest...")

Best regards,
Mark

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:

Below "?" shows how an honest poster is taken in my his two faced
insincere appology.


I'm sorry, was that English? Or Innespeak?

Several posters have had to describe English to you as it must not be
your native tongue.
Google is rift with corrections on your grammar.

As he said before "when I give them the benefit of
the doubt they are dead meat" ( a paraphrase but accurate)



Not entirely accurate. What I wrote to Neil, about you, was "...when I
tell people I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, that means that
basically they are dead meat.". You *almost* got the gist.

I got it, you said it, now own it.

The Queen of trolls wishes to take up more space online. Fine. I ferrly
give him permission to hang himself. The more he wriggles the more
silly he becomes.



You just described yourself accurately, O recipient of the Piqued
Parrot Plaque. There's only one.

Oh my, her majesty got her feathers ruffled. Or is that you official
"position"?

"?" isn't worthy of contempt.. I simply pity him for the pain he has
had to endue in his life and his personal tragedies.



To endue? What does that mean?

It's a typo LOL. I even have to tell you what a typo is?

As Mr. "T" would say, " I pity the fool".


"Mr. T" as in "B. A. Baracus"? Is this an indication of your estimation
of laudable culture?


No. B.A was a character he played. They are not the same. One is real
and one is made up. I still pity you.

Here's a handy hint: if you repost a whole lot of unnecessary prose,
you waste a lot more bandwidth.

The internet has withstood many years of abuse from you and not
collasped on itself. I am certain quality posts from me will do it no
harm, Ma'am.


Here's another: When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Oh please stop . Your clever lack of wit is like trying to watch a
monkey make love to a basketball.

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ps.com...

Phil, I abuse you for your _lack_ of diligence. You make charges
without evidence.

I just came across this post.
Somehow Taylor Kingston can't even find the 75 messages about this
subject,
though he says he has looked. But this is my fault! He can't find them,
he
says, therefore there is no 'evidence'


Phil, Louis Blair and I have been through the Korenman thread, and can
find no evidence of a scandal.

Blair and Houlesby affirm that Kingston lacks diligence! They found it - but
instead of writing to him, they intercept my message to him and write to me.

Or Houlesby does, and he is back to 'scandal' which he denies there is
evidence thereof, after previously elevating scandals to wars, and not even
his choice of dictionary citation.

It is not a scandal according to Houlesby and Blair to award without bid
tens of thousands of dollars ($50,000 then $10,000) without any
performanance criteria.

These two have read members' responses and do not agree with them, or choose
to nominate the matter with anyother word they choose and can't bother to
share with us. But it s not a scandal in their opinion, therefore... pfft,
it doesn't exist!

This, in fact, is not a reply to either of them, since they don't /care/ to
understand anything, --not even suggesting their own term for what members
said-- but they do care to condemn writing about it.

Let us infer that awarding by no bid process $60,000 in 2006 without
performance requirements is not worth any comment from their own rather
bovine approach, and they also do not honour members comments by [after
50,000 words] bothering to characterise the issue themselves.

Moooooo!

Phil Innes


I already wrote these references ...

You did no such thing. You have never specified what you are
referring to. You have not said what you considered "rash and offensive
abuse of speech," nor what you considered "less-than-honest reporting
about Tanner."

Yes I have!

No, you haven't Phil. Not only that, but when I offered to go through
the references ***with you*** you refused. That offer is still open.
Are you interested in defending your assertion about a scandal, or not?


But maybe you can't find those either? Therefore... its not your
fault, therefore the issue does not exist. How pathetic!


Phil, Dr. Blair and I have been *right through* the "evidence" and can
find no scandal. Where is it?

and Blair cut them.

Nonsense. Blair cannot cut what was never there. He cannot even cut
what _is_ there, because your original posts are still there, exactly
as you wrote them. And they contain none of the information you claim
they do.

What information? Be specific otherwise you are merely Vaguer-than-thou!

Trust me, Phil, at times like this it is truly *impossible* to be
Vaguer-than-Phil-Innes!

If
you can't find this material at USCF's forum, jovially known as
Nolanland,
then I say you are not looking very hard.

I found it. Dr.Blair found it. We found no evidence of a scandal. Let
alone a scandal for the previous week, or the following week, or....

Lots of other people found it, so
you must consider that it is you, not me.

Lots of people found it but found no evidence of a scandal, so *you*
must consider that it is *you*, not lots of people.

But I already wrote all this to
you - you are lazy, and don't want to find it or read through it, or for
some strange reason, can't be bothered to read it when you have found it.


I have read it. Where's the beef, Phil?

When you can't be bothered to look, it is not someone else's fault!

Wrong again! We've already been through this!


Whether
its 100 best games, or Averbakh's truthfullness, especially about
refuseniks, or the Oxfords gloss on them, or what Hooper wrote about
Lasker,
or this issue.

In every case you were at fault, Phil. This is a fact. If you believe
that it is not, then the onus is *upon you* to prove that it is not.

This does not make it my 'claim', except that you are forced
to either believe or not believe, since you admit you know nothing!

He admits no such thing. You make stupid, sweeping statements like this
frequently, Phil. I'd quit it if I were you, it makes you look like an
imbecile.

But
chess history is not a religion, and belief and specualtions not really
valuable except they are conscious acts of imagination where no
information
serves, and do not replace actual diligence to looking at what is
available.


"Physician, heal thyself"
--Luke 4:23

Your continual whining about "cutting" and "snipping" is one of your
most frequent, and most childish and inept excuses. It is so
pathetically transparent that it has made you a laughingstock, Phil.

I am sure you and such as Brennen would laugh at all you don't know. What
is
your opinion to me?


So why respond to him at all? Indeed, why post at all, since the only
people who pay any attention to your posts are Taylor, Neil and me, and
we all think that what you post is deranged nonsense? Who benefits from
your posting in the first instance? If it causes you so much grief, why
not stop posting?

Why should you want to switch the subject from you own ability to talk
from
researched knowledge, when you can just write **** about people?


Give an example of Taylor's doing this. That is a serious accusation.

As a pair of Vague nitwits, you guys get the prize.

Being called "vague" by Phil Innes is like being called "short" by a
Munchkin.

And if this material exists, then being subject to abuse by Kingston is
like
*nothing* to do with book-banning.


Once again: you *must* provide *specific* references, or stop writing.
These things are not true. If they are, then you must demonstrate it,
since you, Phil Innes, are the only person in the world who understands
these things, evidently. Put up, or shut up.

BTW: are you in favour of allowing authors the right of Reply to Just
Criticism*? Even Stalin did that

Phil Innes

*That's a Shostakovitch reference, and he risked rather more than his
pride
in doing so, he risked his life.

Hardly. He took the pragmatic option and kowtowed. Why do you suppose
that he composed, for example, "Cheryomushki"?

How much do you know about Dimity?

Mark Houlsby

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ps.com...

Phil, I abuse you for your _lack_ of diligence. You make charges
without evidence.

I just came across this post.
Somehow Taylor Kingston can't even find the 75 messages about this
subject,
though he says he has looked. But this is my fault! He can't find them,
he
says, therefore there is no 'evidence'


Phil, Louis Blair and I have been through the Korenman thread, and can
find no evidence of a scandal.

Blair and Houlesby affirm that Kingston lacks diligence!

We do no such thing.


They found it - but
instead of writing to him, they intercept my message to him and write to me.


We found jack ****, moron. It's all in your imagination.

Or Houlesby does, and he is back to 'scandal' which he denies there is
evidence thereof, after previously elevating scandals to wars, and not even
his choice of dictionary citation.


What are you raving on about now?

It is not a scandal according to Houlesby and Blair to award without bid
tens of thousands of dollars ($50,000 then $10,000) without any
performanance criteria.


Ummm... nobody else can see anything wrong with the award, Phil. If you
think differently, WRITE IN THE KORENMAN THREAD AND POINT IT OUT.

These two have read members' responses and do not agree with them, or choose
to nominate the matter with anyother word they choose and can't bother to
share with us. But it s not a scandal in their opinion, therefore... pfft,
it doesn't exist!


No, we have read the thread and--in stark contrast to you--actually
UNDERSTAND what is written there. The problem is YOU, Phil Innes.

This, in fact, is not a reply to either of them, since they don't /care/ to
understand anything, --not even suggesting their own term for what members
said-- but they do care to condemn writing about it.


You giant ass.

We have expended a great deal of time and effort /trying/ to figure out
what the heck you mean. You now--finally--agree that we have read the
same evidence of a "scandal" as you have. The problem is that the
/only/ person who /regards/ this as a scandal, evidently, is /you/. I
don't condemn anybody's writing about anything. I do condemn baseless
attacks against people--like those which you have launched against Dr.
Blair. The problem is YOU. Without YOU there's nothing. (Apologies to
Sandra Bernhard).

Let us infer that awarding by no bid process $60,000 in 2006 without
performance requirements is not worth any comment from their own rather
bovine approach, and they also do not honour members comments by [after
50,000 words] bothering to characterise the issue themselves.


Why should we infer this? What reason is there to infer anything? The
USCF accrues revenue and disburses it. If it did not do this, it should
no longer be able to function.

If you think there's a beef, WRITE ABOUT IT IN THE KORENMAN THREAD.

It's all in your head, Phil.

It's all in your head.

Mark Houlsby

snips inane Innesian insult