"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

Our Phil finally presents some specific quotes, after claiming he had
already done so. So Phil, is the above supposed to be the "rash and
offensive abuse of speech" you referred to? Sounds like a toned-down
version of a run-of-the-mill rgcp thread.

Kerist! Kingston! I referred to the Forum in the first post! It is your
obfustication with terms such as 'claims', instead of references, and so
on - and it is your claim that even though you looked, you couldn't find 75
messages headed by Korenman's name?

ROFL

But 'sounds like' the problem is with the moderator to me, who apologised at
least twice for rash over-reactions, and unlike Kingston, writers in those
threads objected to the MODERATOR's abuse and thought the issue Marinello
raised was a substantial one, worth investigating.

ISSUE!

I happen to like Mikhail Korenman, and we have talked in person, on the
phone, and also write each other. And maybe he /is/ one of the best chess
fundraisers. What members wanted was some accountability for it - rather
than questioning the merits of Dr. K.

This also follows the rather larger award of $50,000 to the re-visioning of
publications, also issued as an 'award' and with no public bidding, and the
brief for which is in fact still secret!

Now - if Taylor Kingston can't find any issue here - that is something to do
with his own level of attention or available wits - but of course these are
substantial issues of accountability.

Is there something of content that Kingston addresses in the remains of his
his message, after making his usual insulting fuss about 'claims' and such
stuff? I wish to make a note below that follows-on with my conversations
with Randy Bauer.

and stop
your abuse in place of a little diligence, Kingston.

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

You are using the word charges again - about what other people are
writing.
But you can't figure out after looking [!] where the thread is?

Phil, if you are going to make claims here about a thread on the USCF
web-site, it is up to *_you_* to present *_here_* the parts of that
thread you consider relevant to your claims. It is not the
responsibility of others to establish your claims for you.

Says who? Who the hell do you think you are? If you want to verify it - then
you could go an look for yourself - but O NO, not Mr. Mouthy - he first
calls people names, then suggests the matter needs proving to him, and all
the while is too LAZY to check anything himself!

Even when he sees it he can't get the point - 'run of the mill' he says. The
issue is about awarding money without bids, or even any means of
measurement.

The issue is about this continuous practice. Even though the $50,000 was a
scandal, here we go again with another board-initiated award.

The issue is about people like Randy Bauer who say they will bring more
accountability to all levels of USCF - so that there could be re-established
some level of confidence in how it could use money - and, while everyone
except Taylor Kingston and Louis Blair, don't understand this point, the
real question for Bauer is how he is going to achieve accountability?

That's the political hot-potato.

--------


To which the Moderator [ROFL] says NOTHING.

If the above is supposed to establish our Phil's claim of "rash and
offensive abuse of speech," I am not terribly impressed, since it is
considerably less rash and offensive than what he himself habitually
writes here.

Kingston can't address the topic any more than he can attend to his own role
in encouraging fresh air in chess forums - he neither affirms nor denies
that he thought even authors should not be able to respond to attacks on
their books at the palce where he worked!

That is his commitmanet to this topic, he is such a light-weight he can't do
his own research, always suggests that other's work is negligent before he
knows anything, and when he does know something, doesn't get the point and
immediately returns to as much persoanlity diatribe as he can get away with.

Furthermore, I see nothing in the above at all relevant to the claim
of "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner."

You'd have to look in the right place Kingston. But this time, do your own
homework - find what USCF said about Tanner, and THEN tell us your opinion.

Given our Phil's track
record as a journalist, such a charge from him is rather like Khruschev
calling someone a Communist.

Of course, if you really contest something on-topic instead of these usual
vague smears we could compare what you say with what you do.

And on the topic of bastions of free expression - I can post your own
e-mails here - shall we start with book banning at chesscafe and your
attitudes? Or will you snip this reference again? If you want to do that,
start another thread - then we will look at 'track records'! Otherwise you
have neither addressed or even understood this thread, and continued with
your own idea of journalism, adding to your list of those who do present
topics you don't understand by calling them;

Hitler, Mussolini, a murderer, degrees of insanity, drug use, Stalin...

That's the challenge Kingston - write to the point - but if you are content
with writing abuse only, I'll go ahead and make it even clearer

Phil Innes

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

Phil Innes is now accusing me of snipping something that
was not there. The Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT Phil
Innes note did not contain "what USCF members said at
Nolandland". Phil Innes is probably thinking of his Wed,
13 Dec 2006 15:52:36 GMT note

You might be amazed, Louis, that I am not thinking of a post made at
16:25:41 GMT or even one made at 15:52:36 GMT on the same day.

What I am thinking is what /your/ point is. Do you, in fact, have one? Or
are you content to say that other people are vague?

Phil Innes

that he posted in another
thread ("these bastions of free expression"). THAT note
DID contain a Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm quote of Donna
Alarie (part of a reaction to a Beatriz Marinello note), and a
Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:31 pm quote of Timothy Sawmiller (part
of a reaction to a Herbert Vaughn note). I dealt with those
quotes in my notes in THAT thread. Neither quote expressed
disapproval of any specific action by the moderator.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):

7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
7 announcements ...

_
The Forum contains a huge amount of material. If Phil
Innes is objecting to moderator action in there, more
specifics will be needed in order for people to know
what he is complaining about.

"If" says Louis Blair.

"If ... objecting". Does this mean that Louis Blair can't tell if I am
objecting to something, or what the objection is?

Since I have written the complaints of people actually in the forum about
the moderator, and about the issue itself, are these insufficient
'specifics' for Louis Blair?

Since I read through all the messages [75 at the time] is this too onerous
for other people? Or should I paste all of them here to say them 20 seconds
of trouble going to the site and reading for themselves?

"If" reporting this issue is 'objecting to the moderator' and is not a
report, but 'what he is complaining about', is this really 'for people to
know,' as Louis writes above - or for himself?

"If" all the people who DID complain in the thread are not to be noticed,
nor what they said noticed - why should anyone present this to the attention
of Louis Blair?

I have seen an "announcements" page that contained
a link for details about the recent resignation. Is that
where the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner" can be accessed? (The "report" begins: "On
Dec. 4, 2006, USCF Executive Board Secretary Robert
B. Tanner resigned. ...")

I DID write it here before, but some reprobate cut it, Louis! "If" you are
really interested, I say the same to you as I said to Kingston - go find it,
and IF you have something to say as result of your own diligence, then do
write again.

Phil Innes

--------

7 ... [Wasn't Taylor Kingston] the guy who wrote me about
7 what banned authors should have no right of reply at
7 ChessCafe's own forum? ...

_
"... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
banning, and I have never said you have written them
'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor
Kingston) (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:15:14 GMT)

IF Louis Blair questions if Kinston titled his pieces 'about book banning'
he might differentiate that from the content of his messages - in fact, IF
he were interested he could ask Kingston directly what his opinions are and
were - even to the specific extent IF authors could respond in the same
forum as their books are being criticised.

But I rather doubt IF Louis Blair will do that, or IF he is actually
interested in the topic, since I do not understand IF he is interested in
any topic.

Phil Innes

No content in this message Houlsby. Only net-nazi abuse.

If you can't attempt the topic, then you are entirely ignorable by virtue of
having no interest in talking of chess.

PI



"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ps.com...
Chess One wrote:

who knows what?

Phil,

Taylor is right.


Not only that, but most of your posts consist entirely of incoherent
babble. All of your posts consist mostly of incoherent babble. Some of
your posts (although the proportion is alarmingly small) contain some
information which, although barely intelligible, may be understood if
one is sufficiently persistent and inquisitive.

In short, you are very high-maintenance, and very low-mileage.

Can you not tell from the subject heading (which is your invention) why
many of us regard it as the product of a disordered mind?

You need professional psychiatric help.

Do seek it, for your own sake.

Mark

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Chess One wrote:

who knows what?

Phil,

Taylor is right.


Not only that, but most of your posts consist entirely of incoherent
babble. All of your posts consist mostly of incoherent babble. Some of
your posts (although the proportion is alarmingly small) contain some
information which, although barely intelligible, may be understood if
one is sufficiently persistent and inquisitive.

In short, you are very high-maintenance, and very low-mileage.

Can you not tell from the subject heading (which is your invention) why
many of us regard it as the product of a disordered mind?

You need professional psychiatric help.

Do seek it, for your own sake.

Mark

Wonderful, Mark, wonderful!

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

Zing!! Louis, I would say you have just scored a big fat bullseye on
Phil's flummery. Ka-ching!

The NOISE

No chess content in this message from the lazy-duo, who have now stopped
disputing my 'claim' that the thread exists, and have now gone on to dispute
items of its content, and swami-like suggesting what I must think of it,
rather than what USCF members wrote of what they think - and now complaining
I have not yet answered all their questions!

I thought this was about being able to speak to awarding yet another fat sum
without a bid - apparently not - the entire thing is about me! according to
Blair and Kinston, but then, they can't ever find a reason to say their own
point, or even if they have one.

Blair notes that Vaughn is not the moderator, by title, by I say Vaughn is,
in effect. The real moderator permits Vaughn to do as he pleases, which is
to say - there is no real moderation at that forum, except political
moderation.

What Kingston has to do with moderation Louis Blair doesn't know, since
Blair won't ask Kingston if he thinks that even authors should not have a
say at Chesscafe.

That's as much interest as these 2 have in 'the topic'.

The ISSUE

The implication for Randy Bauer is that he is going to run on a plank that
no one wants - no one is even curious why 10 grand should be handed out
without any performance criteria or checks and balances, presumably because
they were not interested in 50 grand also 'awarded' rather than bid, for the
great-makeover.

He would also be wrong to run on accountability factors which do not have to
do with money, since no one at all has expressed any curiosity that the
ratings department could have processed Tanner's playing record, and someone
[but whom] could have even awarded him a life-title - all without presumably
scrutinising the material, though also presumably, they were all paid their
salary for something?

Phil Innes




On Dec 15, 3:19 pm, "Louis Blair" wrote:
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 ... I just read the moderator's ex culpa, "EDIT: I just re-read
7 this and it seems that the tone is more negative than I really
7 intended. I've made harsher statements than were really
7 called for, and I appologize. Please take the above comments
7 as a simple "disagreement" and not the "condemnation" that
7 they sound like."

_
That is a Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:19 pm quote of Herbert Vaughn.
Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 Sloans comments are supported by Ron Suarez and also
7 a USCF Delegate. Another poster comments that the
7 moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'.

_
That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:46 pm Timothy Sawmiller
note, asserting that one could infer that Herbert Vaughn
said Joe Lux made an unjustified attack against Mr.
Korenman. Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 But this moderator [who BTBW sent me an e-mail] is
7 not quite catching the drift as has replied to that comment,
7 "Other than showing yourself to be educationally impaired,
7 what purpose does your post serve?"

_
That is a Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:05 pm quote of Herbert Vaughn.
(He was denying that he said Joe Lux made an unjustified
attack against Mr. Korenman.) Herbert Vaughn is not the
moderator.
_
By the way, previously (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:52:36 GM),
Phil Innes tried to have us believe that Herbert Vaughn had
"jumped all over" a question by Timothy Sawmiller. I
noted that Phil Innes did not identify the queston. Now
Phil Innes quietly drops the jumped-all-over-a-question claim.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 and this is where the comemnt occurs: 'Nice. What a
7 pleasant experience it must be to have a conversation with
7 you! I express a simple opinion, with a little humor added,
7 about what could be inferred from your remarks, and this
7 is your response. Serves me right I guess, for even thinking
7 about expressing an opinon on these bastions of free
7 expression.' ...

_
That is the Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:31 pm Timothy Sawmiller
reaction to the note Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:05 pm note of
Herbert Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 ... I am noticing what other people are saying; here is yet
7 another voice: "I think that you hate Sam Sloan so much,
7 that anything that he does say must be attacked."

_
That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:49 pm Douglas Forsythe
note addressing Herbert Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not
the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 Now Nolan has kicked in to ask about other disciplinary
7 measures to be taken against Sam Sloan. ...

_
What I see is a Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:21 pm Mike Nolan
note commenting on Sam Sloan's lack of involvement in
drafting acceptable forum usage guidelines and disciplinary
procedures. I see nothing in the note about disciplinary
measures to be taken specifically against Sam Sloan.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 ... On the next page the moderator has used outside
7 type IN RED to shout at Sam Sloan.

_
That is a Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:36 am note of Herbert Vaughn.
Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 This BIG RED is met by a new poster's comment "The
7 Tanstaafl comet is back; look at it going around the Sloan
7 star, and what a dysfunctional solar system we have."

_
That was a Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:14 am Douglas Forsythe
note addressing Herbert Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not
the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 Which obtains an apology for knee-jerk reactions and
7 'over-reations' from the [ROFL] moderator

_
Those are (approximately) Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:35 pm
quotes of Herbert Vaughn. Herbert Vaughn is not the
moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT):

7 But then we have thread-drift, and Bill Goichberg plus
7 other politicos begine to talk about being reimbursed for
7 expenses, and eventually fizzles when someone called
7 'rfeditor' writes [in a moderated forum] "You must know
7 as well as I do what those line items were for. I'd really
7 like to phrase this more harshly (something on the order
7 of "Are you really a moron or an amazingly lifelike
7 imitation?"), but that might be considered a personal
7 attack."
7
7 To which the Moderator [ROFL] says NOTHING.

_
John Hillery was addressing Sam Sloan who has used
the word "stupid" more than once.

Chess One wrote:

No content in this message Houlsby. Only net-nazi abuse.


Oh I assure you I am anti-Nazi, pro-rationality. Notwithstanding my own
undeniable occasional tendency to the irrational, that is.

If you can't attempt the topic, then you are entirely ignorable by virtue of
having no interest in talking of chess.


If it were even remotely true that I have no interest in talking of
chess, then you may, indeed, have a point. However, it is very easy for
me to demonstrate that it is not true at all. How many recent examples
of my discussing chess would you like me to cite?

As for my "attempting the topic", well, my little entreaty to which you
have just replied was intended as a (probably futile) gesture to nudge
you in its general direction.

Notice the number of endorsements my entreaties have received.

I'm serious dude. You need help. Really.

MH

PI

snip

Chess One wrote:

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):

7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
7 announcements ...

_
The Forum contains a huge amount of material. If Phil
Innes is objecting to moderator action in there, more
specifics will be needed in order for people to know
what he is complaining about.

"If" says Louis Blair.

"If ... objecting". Does this mean that Louis Blair can't tell if I am
objecting to something, or what the objection is?


No, it's a polite way of saying: "Put up or shut up, you disingenuous
****."

Since I have written the complaints of people actually in the forum about
the moderator, and about the issue itself, are these insufficient
'specifics' for Louis Blair?


Given that you are now writing about goings-on *in a different forum*
it *is* necessary for you to be *absolutely specific* about *every
reference* to the other forum, yes. Taylor already explained that to
you, but, typically, you have evidently chosen to ignore him. Just in
case you try to argue that in fact Taylor never said any such thing,
here's what he wrote, on Friday, December 15th 2006 at 5:52pm:

"Phil, if you are going to make claims here about a thread on the USCF
web-site, it is up to *_you_* to present *_here_* the parts of that
thread you consider relevant to your claims. It is not the
responsibility of others to establish your claims for you."
--Taylor Kingston

Here's a link to the post in which he wrote that:

http://masl.to/?A2274316E

Since I read through all the messages [75 at the time] is this too onerous
for other people?

Yes, certainly too onerous, you idiot. Like Taylor said, if you
introduce the topic into a *different forum* then very definitely you
have placed the onus upon *yourself* to do *all* of the legwork. All of
it.

Or should I paste all of them here to say them 20 seconds
of trouble going to the site and reading for themselves?


Yes, do that, and raise points as you see fit. In other words, debate
like an adult who is not seriously deranged.

"If" reporting this issue is 'objecting to the moderator' and is not a
report, but 'what he is complaining about', is this really 'for people to
know,' as Louis writes above - or for himself?


The former. I'm on tentahooks, here.

"If" all the people who DID complain in the thread are not to be noticed,
nor what they said noticed - why should anyone present this to the attention
of Louis Blair?


No reason other than that YOU decided that it was worth importing the
issue to RGCP.

Therefore the onus is upon YOU to do *whatever* Dr. Blair or anybody
else asks in order to clarify the matter, and to reach a satisfactory
conclusion. Under the circumstances Dr. Blair's post is not remotely
unreasonable.

Put up or shut up, you disingenuous ****.

I have seen an "announcements" page that contained
a link for details about the recent resignation. Is that
where the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner" can be accessed? (The "report" begins: "On
Dec. 4, 2006, USCF Executive Board Secretary Robert
B. Tanner resigned. ...")

I DID write it here before, but some reprobate cut it, Louis!

If you wrote it here before, it would be impossible for anyone,
reprobate or no, to cut it. It still would be here. The only messages
which disappear from the Google archive are ones which the author
requests ought to be removed after a certain number of days.

To demonstrate this, here is a link to my very first post to Usenet:

http://masl.to/?Z5771116E



"If" you are
really interested, I say the same to you as I said to Kingston - go find it,
and IF you have something to say as result of your own diligence, then do
write again.

Phil Innes


IF you intend not to demonstrate, once again, that you are not
deserving of opprobrium, then YOU ***must*** do ALL of the work here.

Posting as you have in this thread, you have taken upon yourself
certain responsibilities.

For once in your life, be responsible.

snip

Mark Houlsby

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

Chess One wrote:

No content in this message Houlsby. Only net-nazi abuse.


Oh I assure you I am anti-Nazi, pro-rationality. Notwithstanding my own
undeniable occasional tendency to the irrational, that is.

See then, if you could attempt the subject matter.

If you can't attempt the topic, then you are entirely ignorable by virtue
of
having no interest in talking of chess.


If it were even remotely true that I have no interest in talking of
chess, then you may, indeed, have a point. However, it is very easy for
me to demonstrate that it is not true at all. How many recent examples
of my discussing chess would you like me to cite?

I am not making an request as much as stating an observation

As for my "attempting the topic", well, my little entreaty to which you
have just replied was intended as a (probably futile) gesture to nudge
you in its general direction.

Notice the number of endorsements my entreaties have received.

LOL

I'm serious dude. You need help. Really.

No content again from Houlsby! Who here even justifies writing ad hom trash
and earning his appelation by stating that what he does is popular! Heil!

Did you really not want to discuss the topic Houlsby; there are several
possibilities, not exclusive of what I have written about 'awards' without
responsibility, or political favorites being preferred to those scape-goated
to some cause?

And spare me your stupid, juvenile concern! If you want to write on an issue
I assume you will do so, not say that not doing so is popular, therefore
other people need help, etc = that defines a net-nazi to a T.

PI

MH

PI

snip

Dear Mark,

I hope you are well. It has been so very long since your last book was
reviewed after publication. Perhaps the next will be better received
than the last and your need to attempt to attack in a public newsgroup
will diminish. Such actions are indeed a waste of talent and we all
hope that you will come back to the light side of the force.

I am sorry to make this entreaty public . I do so as I am unsure if
your email as is listed in the newsgroup is accurate or not. So many
people are cowards as to who they really are and how to contact them
directly.

No venom is intended in this posting. I would just hope that those like
yourself, who have a true gift would cease wasting their time in
pointless attacks on others.

Rob