Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT):

7 ... no one has actually disputed that anything i wrote is
7 untrue ...

_
Example:
_
"... Another poster comments that the
moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'. ..."
- Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT)
_
"... That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:46 pm
Timothy Sawmiller note [about Herbert
Vaughn]. Herbert Vaughn is not the
moderator. ..." - Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006
12:19:48 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT):

7 ... why any of these people have written at all is
7 unknown, ...

_
One benefit has been to discover that Phil Innes was
(1) using "the moderator" to refer to someone who is not
(in PI's words) "the real moderator", and (2) describing
others as criticizing "the moderator" when they were
criticizing someone who is not (in PI's words) "the real
moderator". We have also been able see Phil Innes
admit such behavior while not offering an apology.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT):

7 ... people [in the forum] who plainly resent such
7 political largesse, without even attempting any
7 accounting for their actions

_
Who, other than Phil Innes, believes that there is no
"attempting" to "account" "for their actions"?

_
"I voted in favor of giving the money to Mikhail because
I was so impressed with what he had achieved in Kansas.
In retrospect I believe I made a mistake, but that does not
take away from his proven brilliance as a chess promoter
and organizer." - Joel Channing (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:03 pm)
_
_
"... Mikhail did incredible work for US chess while he was
located in Kansas. He secured significant grant funding
from the State, involved the local community to a degree
rarely seen in a town of its size, brought in world class
players and hosted quality events that received national
coverage. ..." - Randy Bauer (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:58 pm)
_
_
"... This arrangement involved work other than fund raising,
and it is possible that sponsorship will still result from his
efforts, but I am disappointed that no definite sponsorship
has resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun Dec 10, 2006
6:50 pm)
_
_
"I'm sure there were others, but one area where he was
successful was getting grant funding from the State of
Kansas, I believe through their department of economic
development. This was different than other chess grant
funding efforts through government, which generally rely
on chess' educational value. In this instance, he went
with the approach that 'chess tournaments appeal to
people as being intellectual and full of smart people, and
with strong national publicity, Kansas will benefit from
being associated with them.' I think he also tied in the
Karpov angle, again giving the City and State a 'worldly'
image. ..." - Randy Bauer (Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:10 pm)
_
_
"Here's an article that ran in National Geographic on
Korenman and chess in Kansas.
_
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0605/feature6/
..." - Maret Thorpe (Dec 13, 2006 1:28 pm)
_
_
"Here are some known activities:
_
Fundraising:
_
2003 - Received a grant from the State of Kansas for
$251,000 to operate the Karpov International School of
chess in Lindsborg, KS
_
2005/06 - Raised $150,000 for the Chess for Peace
program featured former President Mikhail Gorbachev,
World Champions Anatoly Karpov and Susan Polgar
and a nationalwide scholastic group trip to Moscow for
a match with Russian scholastic players
_
For the USCF sponsored activities:
_
2003, 2004 - Raised over $15,000 for the Final Four
College Presidential Cup (officially sponsored by
USCF! With $0 support in 2003 from USCF)
_
2004 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov inauguration to
the Hall of Fame (USCF sponsored $1,000)
_
2005 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov participation at
the SuperNational in Nashville, TN (USCF support - $0)
_
Chess Organizer:
_
=B7 2004 U.S. Junior Open
=B7 2004 U.S. Junior Championship
=B7 2004 U.S. Cadet Championship
=B7 2004 Pan American Intercollegiate Championship
=B7 2003, 2004 Final Four Presidential Cup
=B7 2001-2004 Lindsborg Rotary Open
=B7 2002-2005 Lindsborg Open
=B7 2003 Lindsborg Invitational
=B7 2004 Lindsborg Knock-Out
=B7 2003, 2004, 2005 KS Open
=B7 2004, 2005 Anatoly Karpov - Susan Polgar Match
=B7 2001-2006 Scholastic tournaments
=B7 2005 KS Scholastic Grade Championship
=B7 2001-2006 Summer camps
=B7 2003-2005 Seminars for Educators
=B7 2006 Illinois Championship
_
Awards:
_
2006 USCF Special Service Award
2005 FIDE International Organizer
2005 Community Service Award (Lindsborg)
2005 Rotary International Service Award
2004 USCF Chess Organizer of the Year
_
Dr. Korenman is also an important member of the
USCF Scholastic Council. He is well respected by
many people including former WC Anatoly Karpov,
former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, Susan
Polgar and countless others." - Paul Truong (Wed
Dec 13, 2006 2:00 pm)

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT):

7 ... no one has actually disputed that anything i wrote is
7 untrue ...

_
Example:
_
"... Another poster comments that the
moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'. ..."
- Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT)
_
"... That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:46 pm
Timothy Sawmiller note [about Herbert
Vaughn]. Herbert Vaughn is not the
moderator. ..." - Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006
12:19:48 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT):

7 ... why any of these people have written at all is
7 unknown, ...

_
One benefit has been to discover that Phil Innes was
(1) using "the moderator" to refer to someone who is not
(in PI's words) "the real moderator", and (2) describing
others as criticizing "the moderator" when they were
criticizing someone who is not (in PI's words) "the real
moderator". We have also been able see Phil Innes
admit such behavior while not offering an apology.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:16:03 GMT):

7 ... people [in the forum] who plainly resent such
7 political largesse, without even attempting any
7 accounting for their actions

_
Who, other than Phil Innes, believes that there is no
"attempting" to "account" "for their actions"?

_
"I voted in favor of giving the money to Mikhail because
I was so impressed with what he had achieved in Kansas.
In retrospect I believe I made a mistake, but that does not
take away from his proven brilliance as a chess promoter
and organizer." - Joel Channing (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:03 pm)
_
_
"... Mikhail did incredible work for US chess while he was
located in Kansas. He secured significant grant funding
from the State, involved the local community to a degree
rarely seen in a town of its size, brought in world class
players and hosted quality events that received national
coverage. ..." - Randy Bauer (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:58 pm)
_
_
"... This arrangement involved work other than fund raising,
and it is possible that sponsorship will still result from his
efforts, but I am disappointed that no definite sponsorship
has resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun Dec 10, 2006
6:50 pm)
_
_
"I'm sure there were others, but one area where he was
successful was getting grant funding from the State of
Kansas, I believe through their department of economic
development. This was different than other chess grant
funding efforts through government, which generally rely
on chess' educational value. In this instance, he went
with the approach that 'chess tournaments appeal to
people as being intellectual and full of smart people, and
with strong national publicity, Kansas will benefit from
being associated with them.' I think he also tied in the
Karpov angle, again giving the City and State a 'worldly'
image. ..." - Randy Bauer (Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:10 pm)
_
_
"Here's an article that ran in National Geographic on
Korenman and chess in Kansas.
_
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0605/feature6/
..." - Maret Thorpe (Dec 13, 2006 1:28 pm)
_
_
"Here are some known activities:
_
Fundraising:
_
2003 - Received a grant from the State of Kansas for
$251,000 to operate the Karpov International School of
chess in Lindsborg, KS
_
2005/06 - Raised $150,000 for the Chess for Peace
program featured former President Mikhail Gorbachev,
World Champions Anatoly Karpov and Susan Polgar
and a nationalwide scholastic group trip to Moscow for
a match with Russian scholastic players
_
For the USCF sponsored activities:
_
2003, 2004 - Raised over $15,000 for the Final Four
College Presidential Cup (officially sponsored by
USCF! With $0 support in 2003 from USCF)
_
2004 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov inauguration to
the Hall of Fame (USCF sponsored $1,000)
_
2005 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov participation at
the SuperNational in Nashville, TN (USCF support - $0)
_
Chess Organizer:
_
· 2004 U.S. Junior Open
· 2004 U.S. Junior Championship
· 2004 U.S. Cadet Championship
· 2004 Pan American Intercollegiate Championship
· 2003, 2004 Final Four Presidential Cup
· 2001-2004 Lindsborg Rotary Open
· 2002-2005 Lindsborg Open
· 2003 Lindsborg Invitational
· 2004 Lindsborg Knock-Out
· 2003, 2004, 2005 KS Open
· 2004, 2005 Anatoly Karpov - Susan Polgar Match
· 2001-2006 Scholastic tournaments
· 2005 KS Scholastic Grade Championship
· 2001-2006 Summer camps
· 2003-2005 Seminars for Educators
· 2006 Illinois Championship
_
Awards:
_
2006 USCF Special Service Award
2005 FIDE International Organizer
2005 Community Service Award (Lindsborg)
2005 Rotary International Service Award
2004 USCF Chess Organizer of the Year
_
Dr. Korenman is also an important member of the
USCF Scholastic Council. He is well respected by
many people including former WC Anatoly Karpov,
former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, Susan
Polgar and countless others." - Paul Truong (Wed
Dec 13, 2006 2:00 pm)

Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:

Dear Mark,

I hope you are well. It has been so very long since your last book was
reviewed after publication.

It has. Don't worry, I intend to resume the practice.

Bravo.

Perhaps the next will be better received
than the last and your need to attempt to attack in a public newsgroup
will diminish.

Perhaps. That rather depends upon your buddy Innes and you, doesn't it?


Why would it depend on me? I don't buy or read your books.


Here's a hint: they're not *my* books. There'd be little point in my
reviewing a book which I had written. Hardly an impartial critic, and
all that...

I was referring to my continually confuting your bull****, and Phil's
bull****. Phil has an excuse, he's mentally ill. What's your excuse?

Such actions are indeed a waste of talent and we all
hope that you will come back to the light side of the force.


LOL don't tell me you actually *believe* that adolescent nonsense?
(Don't get me wrong, I was 14 in 1977, and I'm especially enamoured of
what are now episodes IV and VI).


No, but it is much nicer than what you have earned.


I'm sorry.... what *exactly* do you mean by that? What is "nicer"? What
have I earned?

I am sorry to make this entreaty public .

Don't be.

I do so as I am unsure if
your email as is listed in the newsgroup is accurate or not.

Well, you should be sure, since if it were not, your last attempt to
email me would have bounced. It did not bounce. DUH!


Not all messages bounce. If you were wiser you might know that,/// duh
back at ya!


Dude, every time I've emailed a bogus address, it's bounced. Maybe
you've just emailed folks and they've not gotten back to you.

So many
people are cowards as to who they really are and how to contact them
directly.


Such people need not concern us here....

Really? You defend them daily.


Oh yes? Who would that be? Name names.

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.


Stick with me, and you'll learn where this is leading. BTW, in posting
like this, you're not helping your buddy Phil, AT ALL. Quite the
opposite.


Not trying to help Phil. I was trying to help you.


Well, you ought to be trying to help Phil, if he's really your
buddy.... the guy is mentally ill.

If you know him personally, if you see him from day to day (as has been
hinted in these groups), *do* persuade him to see a good psychiatrist.
It's what he really needs.

You might take that advise to hert as well.

"...take that advise to hert..." ...hmm.

Dear Mark Houslby - if you wish to discuss the issues, I proposed them again
in a new thread, Chess Politics Chess Heretics. You will excuse me for
declining to discuss them through Blair's-filter.

But I will not discuss the issues with people who will not state their own
interest in them, nor conduct their own due-diligence - meanwhile conducting
very extension stalls, by demanding proofs and so on, for what is not even
contested otherwise.

If indeed Chess Politics Chess Heretics is 'my issue' and you find nothing
to concern yourself in it, then you might say so or pass on further replies,
however, you might disabuse yourself that because you have no natural
interest in the topic, that those who do are in need of psychiatric help =
which only works as a thow-away line; a joke

But you do not employ your term that way! There are so many issues here
confounded with each other, that I will discuss each and every one with you
or anyone else - but more discreetly than this Blair-rendered omnibus miasma
edition.

I do emphasise a point; if you do not state your own interest, but demand
something of others, then, to talk psychology, this is not what is
considered sincere. IE: if you ask for sources - why? What's the point ot
telling you? What is the implication of knowing a source, for example? Why
not research the issue yourself, and then if it proves false, contradict it
by all means! But otherwise is providing information literally a waste of
time?

I do not consider Blair an honest reporter, and he snips and cuts to his own
amusement, which is frequently maliciously distorting.

The immediate issues raised by members at USCF's forum are as I reported
them, and even cited them here - sorry not to oblige you by reposting all 75
messages, but, you see, you never said why you were even interested, or why
you could not read them yourself - besides which I would decline to do so,
since there are other posters here who could verify what I say, so the
measure was uncalled for.

I think you have not understood that the reluctance to provide answers seems
very much in accord with why people want the information anyway.

Perhaps instead of wasting these given responses below, you could
subsequently re-use them? But if you write to me in disparaging terms, then
you can instead of any of these sober measures, not expect an answer, since
I will not consider your inquiry worth response.

These measures, I suggest to you, are rational means of addressing any
topic.

Phil Innes

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

In this post:

http://masl.to/?H2BA3416E

...you have just complained again that I never address the topic.

Very well... here I shall attempt to do just that:

Shall we begin?

Chess One wrote:

"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


Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this one, shall we?

You just wrote to Dr. Blair, above:

"What I am thinking is what /your/ point is. Do you, in fact, have
one?"

Good questions both. Dr. Blair's first post in this thread was this
one:

http://masl.to/?O2976216E

He was replying to this post of yours:

http://masl.to/?E1C72416E

...in which you wrote (at the beginning of the post):

"... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
$10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
abuse of speech."

Now, in reply to this, in his post http://masl.to/?O2976216E Dr. Blair
wrote:

"Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
the examples?"

Let's deconstruct this in a manner which might make even Jacques
Derrida blush, shall we?

From the top:

"I looked at the USCF website this morning..." (PI)

Presumably you meant the morning of Wednesday, 13 December 2006, which
was the date upon which you posted the earlier of the two messages
which we are deconstructing (the later of the two being Dr. Blair's
reply).

"...and reported on the $10,000 'award'..." (PI)

Why the quotes around the word: 'award', Phil? Explain yourself.

"...which is this week's scandal." (PI)

Ok, let's step back for a moment, and examine what appears to have just
happened:

You, Phil Innes, have evidently made a leap, and characterised the
apportioning of the $10,000 as a scandal.

Do you have irrefutable evidence of its being a scandal? If so, what is
it? Where might it be found?

You continued:

"and also how it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator -
which
even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive abuse of
speech."

Hmmm let's see.... maybe this is an attempt to infer that even what is,
in your understanding, the most greatly-endowed pachyderm which the
evolutionary process has placed in our midst (so to speak) would be
severely chafed by what you had read just that morning in the Usenet
group which is both exclusively devoted to USCF politics, and bears the
Federation's name. Is that a reasonable representation? If yes, just
say yes. If no, say no *and explain why not*.

Now, here's the thing. Thus far, beyond the most cursory of
introductions you have presented absolutely no clue with respect to
what exactly it was you had just read that morning. All we have, so
far, is an oblique reference to a "scandal" (which was your
characterisation of the... whatever it was/is...

To continue, then, we reach Dr. Blair's first entry into this
particular conversation:

"Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
the examples?" (LB)

Now, if I understood you correctly, your characterisation of the
goings-on in the USCF group as: "rash and offensive abuse of speech"
may have been no more than an attempt to register your evident disgust
at the *fact* of the ten thousand dollars' having been apportioned in
the manner in which it had. Is that correct? If it is, then it would
appear that when he wrote: "Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator
treated the subject with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"?" Dr.
Blair was genuinely confused about your motive or motives for employing
the phrase: "rash and offensive abuse of speech".

To hazard a guess (and it's no more than a guess) one suspects that
perhaps your point may have been that such apportionment (of the ten
thousand dollars) was, in some sense, an abuse of freedom of
expression. Is that how you thought about it?

Sparing his blushes, Dr. Blair is a pretty smart guy, perhaps he is
smarter than most folks. Certainly he is smarter than I am, but then I
have met eggplants smarter than I am.

Nevertheless, if my analysis thus far is anywhere near to being
accurate, even a pretty smart guy like Dr. Blair was evidently *quite
at a loss* to discern your true meaning. Perhaps I have been, too. If
so, please explain precisely how...

Anyways, to continue the process of deconstruction:

"I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal,..." (PI)

"What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
vague, would he?" (LB)

I must admit that I should like you to be very much more specific about
the particular instance of "...less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner,".

What was this report? Who wrote it? Where? Are you able to reproduce
it? Are you able to provide us with a hyperlink? What was its
substance? What is your view of the specifics of whatever it was that
was written by whoever wrote whatever it was that they wrote?

I'm afraid that--like Dr. Blair--I'm groping in the dark, here, I'd
appreciate your flipping the switch and assailing my ocular nerve with
the most egregious incandescence. Do you think that you might be able
to do that for me, please?

To continue:

"... The per capita rate is interesting, and if extrapolated
here would have produced 80 GMs. I think actual
production in the same period was for home-grown GMs,
UK = 20, USA = 2. Meanwhile Poland has produced 20
GMs from an even smaller pop. than UK since the wall
came down. ... " (PI)

To clarify, evidently here you (and, before you the estimable Mr.
Bauer) are describing the goings-on at the start of the 1970s, and,
perhaps more specifically, the boom which was precipitated by Fischer's
having won the World Championship in 1972. Right?

So...your point appears to be that on a per capita basis, contrary to
Mr. Bauer's rather more upbeat appraisal, the statistics (as you
believe them to have been, although you did not quote a source) suggest
that small countries like England an Poland made more of what one might
term "the Fischer boom", than the United States did. Is that correct?

Interestingly, you note the haemorrhaging of a significant minority of
Poland's population "...since the [Berlin] wall came down." ...an event
which occurred some seventeen years *after* Fischer's having gained the
world crown. Is that correct?

If it is, what is the connection between the reduced Polish population
post-1989 and the goings-on in the United States, England and Poland
right after Fischer's historic victory?

Were you making a specific point, there?

to continue:

"In Europe, playing chess professionally is a
viable occupation." - Jennifer Shahade (quoted by LB)

Apparently, Dr. Blair's motive in quoting the estimable Ms. Shahade may
have been to convey to you the *fact* that in Europe it is possible to
make a living playing chess. Even today.

Does it not strike you that this might tend to reinforce the argument
which was put forward by you? Certainly, it strikes me that way.

To continue:

"... No one seems interested in learning anything about
the UK club system, or whatever they did in Poland/ ..." (PI)

Here, you are evidently asserting that, in your view, there is more
than a general disinterest in whatever it was that went on in the UK
and/or Poland at the time. You seem to imply that implementing similar
measures in the US might, in your view, exert a positive effect.

Is that correct?

Finally, for this post:

"What can the USCF do about this?" - Louis
Blair (30 Mar 2006 07:16:13 -0800)

Dr. Blair quotes a post which he made on 30th March of this year which
indicates his having expressed just such an interest at that time. This
being so, it disproves your assertion, above, that: "...No one seems
interested...".

How am I doing so far, Phil?

Am I addressing the topic?

Would you care to clarify any misinterpretations/omissions on my part.

Please don't be afraid to be absolutely brutal, but please, whatever
else you do, be clear (bear in mind that I have known eggplants which
are smarter than I am).

Reply to me as you would to any *complete imbecile* for that, I fear,
is exactly what I may be.

TIA for your candour.

Mark

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
Here are links to some of the plaudits I have received as a result of
my entreating you to do something for the good of your own mental
health...:

Houslby, you speculate in public about the mental health of other people,
but can't write on-topic without preceding you 'inquiries' by telling others
to '**** off'. You seem to think I value your opinion because you are
getting off on others' abuse.

ROFL

You have small ironical appreciation, no?

If you wish to attend to any dicreet issues of chess or its management, I
have suggested elsewhere a sane means of doing so. Should you like to do
something else, I am sure there are plenty of people who will like that sort
of thing, and will likle you while you do it. shrug

Phil Innes

U¿ytkownik "Chess One" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:ZVbhh.2793$386.2471@trndny01...

Houslby, you speculate in public about the mental health of other people,
but can't write on-topic without preceding you 'inquiries' by telling
others to '**** off'. You seem to think I value your opinion because you
are getting off on others' abuse.

This is why I kill-filed him a long time ago :-)

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


7 - in fact, IF he were interested he could ask Kingston
7 directly what his opinions are and were - even to the
7 specific extent IF authors could respond in the same
7 forum as their books are being criticised.

_
Phil Innes quietly drops the issue of book-banning while
making his suggestion.

Balir avoids a direct challenge to find out Kingston's attitude for himself,
while suggesting I 'dropped' the issue. ROFL

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):

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

_
I will not follow the suggestion of Phil Innes as I have
no desire to be distracted from the question of whether
or not there is writing about book-banning in the emails.

WHAT does that mean in plain English? Is that "I am not interested in the
subject of book banning" ?

Can someone please parse this sentence: "I have no desire to be distracted
from the question of whether or not there is writing about book-banning in
the emails".

Does that mean " I am interested in the subject of book banning, and want no
distractions" ?

If he doesn't want to be distracted [by me], why doesn't he do as I suggest.
The LUDICROUS Blair demands information from me, but can't even answer the
simplest question directly. I have no idea of what his answer means - except
that he seems compeltely insincere.

If anyone wants to know Kingston's attitude, then ask him directly.

Phil Innes



"... [Wasn't Taylor Kingston] the guy who wrote
me about what banned authors should have no
right of reply at ChessCafe's own forum? ..."
- Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT)
_
"... 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)

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:48:50 GMT):

7 ... Is what I wrote ACTUALLY IN DISPUTE? ...

_
Example:
_
"... Another poster comments that the
moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'. ..."
- Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT)
_
"... That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:46 pm
Timothy Sawmiller note [about Herbert
Vaughn]. Herbert Vaughn is not the
moderator. ..." - Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006
12:19:48 -0800)

But in the very previous post Blair answered:

7 ... the lazy-duo, who have now stopped disputing my
7 'claim' that the thread exists,

_
Nonsense for which Phil Innes should apologize promptly.
In this discussion, I have not disputed any claim that "the
thread exists". Phil Innes has no quote (or anything else
specific) to back up such foolishness because nothing of
the sort exists.

----------------

Blair writes in utterly idiotic fashion to distort even his own intention.
If he has some interest in the SUBJECT MATTER of the post he might indicate
it clearly, in a non-diffident sentence, or continue as he does here, to
contradict not me, but himself.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

Dear Mark Houslby - if you wish to discuss the issues, I proposed them again
in a new thread, Chess Politics Chess Heretics. You will excuse me for
declining to discuss them through Blair's-filter.


I shall reply in that thread. I shall not, however, excuse you for your
first entreating me to discuss the topic, then, when I propose to
discuss the topic IN DETAIL, your performing your now-customary
*volte-face* by which YOU completely ignore the topic - precisely the
charge which you level at me.

But I will not discuss the issues with people who will not state their own
interest in them, nor conduct their own due-diligence - meanwhile conducting
very extension stalls, by demanding proofs and so on, for what is not even
contested otherwise.


So, as far as you are concerned, unless you, Phil Innes, find a
correspondent's *motive* for questioning your position to satisfy your
idiosyncratic criteria, you are not prepared to debate with them? Is
that correct?

If indeed Chess Politics Chess Heretics is 'my issue' and you find nothing
to concern yourself in it, then you might say so or pass on further replies,
however, you might disabuse yourself that because you have no natural
interest in the topic, that those who do are in need of psychiatric help =
which only works as a thow-away line; a joke


No, it goes deeper. I shall reply in "Heretics", because I am now
interested in this topic, whether you would have it or no....

But you do not employ your term that way!

Indeed I do not! You *really are* mentally ill, and you *really do*
need psychiatric help!

This much is glaringly apparent. This is why, when I entreat you to
*seek* psychiatric help, I receive plaudits, whereas the only "support"
(if, indeed, it may be properly characterised as such) you receive,
evidently, consists entirely of your buddy Rob Mitchell's essentially
diversionary (if equally evasive) random ramblings.

Seek psychiatric help, Phil... you really need it! Your really needing
psychiatric help is the reason why I receive plaudits when I entreat
you so to do.... you *have* noticed the plaudits, haven't you?

There are so many issues here
confounded with each other, that I will discuss each and every one with you
or anyone else - but more discreetly than this Blair-rendered omnibus miasma
edition.


You're saying that you can't understand Dr. Blair's posts? Evidently
he, and a great many of us, experience a similar difficulty with your
posts. What do you propose that we do? Nobody knows what the heck you
mean. It's as if your writing is *deliberately unintelligible*.

I do emphasise a point; if you do not state your own interest,

Why must I state my own interest? Merely to satisfy *your* curiosity?

but demand
something of others,

Not demand, entreat.

then, to talk psychology,

Not psychology, psychiatry.

this is not what is
considered sincere.

Whether or not it is considered sincere, it is, in fact, sincere.

IE: if you ask for sources - why?

Simple really: you have characterised the apportioning of $10,000 a
scandal. Whether or not you intend it to be, this is a serious
accusation. In time, it may prove that you are justified in employing
the term: "scandal". It may prove that you are not justified.

In making such a statement, however, you place certain obligations upon
yourself, one of which is to identify clearly what your sources are.
Another is to demonstrate, clearly, what it is about the apportionment
which causes you to view it as a "scandal".


What's the point ot
telling you?

In telling me, you'd be telling everyone else in the forum who cares to
know about it. If you did not want people with an interest in the
subject to be able to read about it in this forum, why did you
introduce the subject into this forum?


What is the implication of knowing a source, for example?

In your case, without your revealing your source, the implication is
that you *invented* it. You have a long track record of *inventing*
evidence and then later, when you have been caught red-handed,
performing your customary volte-face, and denying all knowledge.

In short, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not to be
trusted *at all*, so if you are characterising something as a
"scandal", you'd *better* be able to demonstrate, clearly, that it
really is a scandal, rather than merely a "scandal" in the
Phil-ological sense.

Why
not research the issue yourself, and then if it proves false, contradict it
by all means!

Phil, I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT IS, since you have said nothing *specific*
about what it is. Please say something specific, then I *shall*
research it. Ok?

But otherwise is providing information literally a waste of
time?


No, it lets people who read this forum know what the heck it is you
mean. Thus far, we're completely in the dark.

I do not consider Blair an honest reporter, and he snips and cuts to his own
amusement, which is frequently maliciously distorting.


Give *numerous* examples of such "malicious" distortion as practised by
Dr. Blair. If you cannot, you may have just libelled him in a public
forum....

The immediate issues raised by members at USCF's forum are as I reported
them, and even cited them here - sorry not to oblige you by reposting all 75
messages, but, you see, you never said why you were even interested, or why
you could not read them yourself - besides which I would decline to do so,
since there are other posters here who could verify what I say, so the
measure was uncalled for.


No, it wasn't, you see -- none of us yet has a clue what the heck you
mean...

I think you have not understood that the reluctance to provide answers seems
very much in accord with why people want the information anyway.


Which people? What information?

Perhaps instead of wasting these given responses below, you could
subsequently re-use them? But if you write to me in disparaging terms, then
you can instead of any of these sober measures, not expect an answer, since
I will not consider your inquiry worth response.


In other words, first you entreat me to engage the topic, then, when I
do exactly that, you say "No, I now do not want to discuss the topic
with you.". This you have done on a number of occasions, and not just
to me....

These measures, I suggest to you, are rational means of addressing any
topic.


Which measures? Any topic? Are you sure?

Your now-customary avoidance of the topic is duly noted.

Mark Houlsby

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
Here are links to some of the plaudits I have received as a result of
my entreating you to do something for the good of your own mental
health...:

Houslby, you speculate in public about the mental health of other people,
but can't write on-topic without preceding you 'inquiries' by telling others
to '**** off'. You seem to think I value your opinion because you are
getting off on others' abuse.


Yet, curiously, I am not the one on the receiving end of something
approximating opprobrium.

How do you account for that? If you are being falsely characterised,
why has *nobody* bothered to support you? (Rob Mitchell's diversionary
tactics do not qualify as support, they do you both more harm than
good).

ROFL

You have small ironical appreciation, no?


Indeed, no.

If you wish to attend to any dicreet issues of chess or its management, I
have suggested elsewhere a sane means of doing so.

I shall reply to it.

Should you like to do
something else, I am sure there are plenty of people who will like that sort
of thing, and will likle you while you do it. shrug

Phil Innes

Where are your supporters, Phil?

Mark Houlsby