Chess One wrote:

"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

You see, Phil, this is a *prime example* of what we mean. Dr. Blair has
been as assiduous about addressing your posts as anyone might
reasonably be expected to be, and when he points out yet another
example of your making a groundless accusation and recommends that you
apologise, as you should, you simply attack him *again*.

Really, you are doing your credibility a great deal of harm.

Mark Houlsby

Chess One wrote:

"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


Balir? Is he one of the dwarves in "The Lord Of The Rings"? I can never
remember all their names.

Oh, wait... perhaps you refer to the impeccable Dr. Blair. I cannot
speak for him, and, goodness knows, he is perfectly capable of speaking
for himself.

Nevertheless it appears to me that Dr. Blair entertains a genuine and
evidently well-motivated interest in the subject of emails about book
banning. He notes some typical Innes obfuscation. Innes goes of at a
tangent. Hmmm... all this seems strangely familiar.

_
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" ?


What exactly do you mean by: "...plain English", Phil?

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" ?


Not bad, but it means more than that. One alternative wording which one
might suggest is:

"I am interested in the subject of whether or not, in the emails in
question, book banning was discussed. I should prefer to get to the
bottom of this question, and, with this in mind, distractions would
seem counter-productive."

If he doesn't want to be distracted [by me], why doesn't he do as I suggest.

Which suggestion is that, Phil?

The LUDICROUS Blair demands information from me,

You're not big on irony, are you?

but can't even answer the
simplest question directly.

Which question?

I have no idea of what his answer means - except
that he seems compeltely insincere.


To this writer, he seems absolutely sincere, and, furthermore, there
must be few people who are as willing as Dr. Blair evidently is to wade
through the reams and reams of obfuscating hogwash otherwise known as
your posts. Perhaps you should be grateful for his diligence.

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


I shall make a point of it.

Meanwhile, Phil, where's the beef?

Mark Houlsby

Chess One wrote:


If you wish to attend to any dicreet issues of chess
I'm confused. What, precisely, is a "dicreet issue"? Can you give an
example?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 Dear Mark Houslby - if you wish to discuss the issues, I
7 proposed them again in a new thread, Chess Politics
7 Chess Heretics. ...

_
In the opening statement, Phil Innes avoided referring to any
supposedly inappropriate conduct by "the moderator" and
avoided claiming that there had been "less-than-honest
reporting about Tanner".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 ... if you ask for sources - why? What's the point ot telling
7 you? What is the implication of knowing a source, for
7 example? ...

_
It helps people to judge whether or not the conclusions of
Phil Innes are produced in a sensible fashion.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

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

_
For one thing:
_
"... No one can prove a negative, eh? ..." - Phil
Innes (Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:59:56 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 But otherwise is providing information literally a waste of
7 time?

_
Researching the issue would not, by itself, have revealed
that Phil Innes was referring to Herbert Vaughn as the
moderator. We learned that 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.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 I do not consider Blair an honest reporter,

_
I am not a "reporter" and I have not claimed to be a
"reporter".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 and he snips and cuts to his own amusement, which
7 is frequently maliciously distorting.

_
Phil Innes, of course, makes no attempt to justify the
above nonsense with specific examples.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:40:04 GMT):

7 The immediate issues raised by members at USCF's
7 forum are as I reported them, and even cited them
7 here - sorry not to oblige you by reposting all 75
7 messages, but, you see, you never said why you
7 were even interested, or why you could not read
7 them yourself - besides which I would decline to do
7 so, since there are other posters here who could
7 verify what I say, so the measure was uncalled for.
7 ...

_
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)

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

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?

A challenge awaits you at the end of this post Houslby - and if you do not
perform the challenge, then what you have said reflects on you.


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

Do you have some inhibition about saying why you command anbd condemn
others, Yes!

You are just an arrogant abuser who can't say why he wants to command
others - while forever questioning them.

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 time awarding $50,000 with no bids then $10,000 with no bids /may/ be
thought not a scandal?

What I reported was what members wrote at the USCF forum. Is that itself
reprehensible? Is there anything odd about it at all? Sure it is a serious
accusation by the members, and what Mark Houslby may not in time be 'a
scandal' is hardly justification for calling reporting of members interests
in terms of insanity.

In making such a statement, however, you place certain obligations upon
yourself, one of which is to identify clearly what your sources are.

You are fond of command - eh? If awarding money with no performance criteria
is not a scandal for you, what do you think a 'scandal' is?

In your case, without your revealing your source,

I DID reveal the source - in fact YOU asked me to post all 75 messages here.
Now you know the source, which remains uncontested, what does it mean to you
to now understand that this is from USCF members? You fail to answer the
question I put you -0 instead you seek to condemn the reporter.

the implication is
that you *invented* it.

So you insist that it does not exist - you fail to look for yourself. You do
not ask others if it exists, and you continue to make defamatory ideas.

It is you Holsby who is lacking here. You are exposed for your trash. You
who do not look. You call names without knowing anything. You!

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.

The HOUSLBY CHALLENGE: Specifically let me turn this on you - and if you
wish to state that the material exists, then presumably you will retract
your [abstract] ****-talk and calm down, otherwise the term net-nazi suits
you well.

I wait your response.

Phil Innes'

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

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
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? ...
_
I wrote (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800):
7 ...
7 "... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
7 banning, and I have never said you have written them
7 'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor
7 Kingston) (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:15:14 GMT)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:56:05 GMT):
7 ... IF he were interested he could ask Kingston directly
7 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.
7
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 wrote (16 Dec 2006 19:27:06 -0800):
7 ... Phil Innes quietly drops the issue of book-banning
7 while making his suggestion.
7
7 I will not follow the suggestion of Phil Innes as I have
7 no desire to be distracted from the question of whether
7 or not there is writing about book-banning in the emails.
7
7 "... [Wasn't Taylor Kingston] the guy who wrote
7 me about what banned authors should have no
7 right of reply at ChessCafe's own forum? ..."
7 - Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT)
7
7 "... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
7 banning, and I have never said you have written them
7 'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor
7 Kingston) (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:15:14 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 Balir avoids a direct challenge to find out Kingston's
7 attitude for himself,

_
I see no reason why I should comply with the challenge
of Phil Innes as my purpose is to determine whether or
not Phil Innes maintains that there is writing about
book-banning in the Taylor Kingston emails. Only Phil
Innes knows what he maintains.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 while suggesting I 'dropped' the issue. ROFL

_
What I actually wrote:
_
"Phil Innes quietly drops the issue of
book-banning while making his suggestion."
- Louis Blair (16 Dec 2006 19:27:06 -0800)
_
As everyone can see for themselves, book-banning
is not mentioned in the Sat, 16 Dec 2006
14:56:05 GMT Phil Innes suggestion (quoted above).

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 WHAT does [the sentence about being distracted]
7 mean in plain English? Is that "I am not interested
7 in the subject of book banning" ? ...

_
No. I am interested in whether or not Phil Innes
maintains that there is writing about book-banning
in the Taylor Kingston emails.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

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

_
No. I am interested in whether or not Phil Innes
maintains that there is writing about book-banning
in the Taylor Kingston emails.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 If he doesn't want to be distracted [by me], ...

_
An incorrect hypothesis. I do not want to be distracted
by suggestion that have nothing to do with learning
about what Phil Innes maintains.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 why doesn't he do as I suggest.

_
Only Phil Innes knows what he maintains.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 The LUDICROUS Blair demands information from me,

_
Surely, Phil Innes knows what he maintains. Phil Innes
wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
vague, would he?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 but can't even answer the simplest question directly. I
7 have no idea of what his answer means

_
"If Phil Innes has trouble with ordinary words
in English he should consult a dictionary."
- Louis Blair (14 Mar 2006 12:25:52 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

7 - except that he seems compeltely insincere.

_
Phil Innes has no facts to justify that nonsense.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:59:36 GMT):

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

_
Only Phil Innes knows what he maintains.
_
"... [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)

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT):
7 ... the lazy-duo, who have now stopped disputing my
7 'claim' that the thread exists, ...
_
I wrote (16 Dec 2006 22:03:56 -0800):
7 ... Nonsense for which Phil Innes should apologize
7 promptly. In this discussion, I have not disputed any
7 claim that "the thread exists". Phil Innes has no quote
7 (or anything else specific) to back up such foolishness
7 because nothing of the sort exists. ...

_
Phil Innes responds (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:12:57 GMT)
by quoting part of my 16 Dec 2006 22:30:02 -0800 note:
7 "Louis Blair" wrote ...
7 Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:48:50 GMT):
7
7 7 ... Is what I wrote ACTUALLY IN DISPUTE? ...
7
7 _
7 Example:
7 _
7 "... Another poster comments that the
7 moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'. ..."
7 - Phil Innes (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT)
7 _
7 "... That was a Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:46 pm
7 Timothy Sawmiller note [about Herbert
7 Vaughn]. Herbert Vaughn is not the
7 moderator. ..." - Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006
7 12:19:48 -0800)
7 ...
7 Blair writes in utterly idiotic fashion to distort even
7 his own intention. If he has some interest in the
7 SUBJECT MATTER of the post he might indicate
7 it clearly, in a non-diffident sentence, or continue
7 as he does here, to contradict not me, but himself.

_
Ridiculous. There is a difference between
_
(1) disputing a claim that a thread exists
_
and
_
(2) disputing the Phil Innes description of a note
in a thread.
_
(2) is something that I have done in this discussion.
(1) is not something that I have done in this discussion.
_
Without further delay, Phil Innes should apologize for
trying to portray me as ever having done (1) in this
discussion.
_
My current interest, at the moment, is to correct the
misleading Phil Innes statements.

In changing the subject heading to: "Holsby - answer this", I assume
that you refer to me, Ines? (sic)

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

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?

A challenge awaits you at the end of this post Houslby - and if you do not
perform the challenge, then what you have said reflects on you.


Ok. I'm your Huckleberry. Do go on...


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

Do you have some inhibition about saying why you command anbd condemn
others, Yes!


No! I say it over and over! You ignore it over and over!

You are just an arrogant abuser who can't say why he wants to command
others - while forever questioning them.


Well, others might disagree with that assessment...


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 time awarding $50,000 with no bids then $10,000 with no bids /may/ be
thought not a scandal?


It may, indeed, if it works out, and most folks are happy with the
deal...
consider it to have been well spent. Indeed, that could be true even of
folks
who *may* consider the amount to have been a little on the high side.

Is it *definitely* a scandal? What *specifically* makes it a scandal
*for
certain*?

What I reported was what members wrote at the USCF forum. Is that itself
reprehensible?

No, but the manner in which you did it was.

Is there anything odd about it at all?

Yes, one wonders why, as *you* have suggested yourself, it could not
have
*remained confined* to that forum, and resolved here. Certainly, *that*
is odd.

Sure it is a serious
accusation by the members, and what Mark Houslby may not in time be 'a
scandal' is hardly justification for calling reporting of members interests
in terms of insanity.


The insanity, Phil, is manifest in your unusual behaviour. My pointing
out
your being mentally ill has received plaudits *precisely because* other
people
who know you have been *similarly affected* by that behaviour of yours
which,
clearly, is the product of a mental disorder.

For the sake of your own health, you need to see a psychiatrist.

In making such a statement, however, you place certain obligations upon
yourself, one of which is to identify clearly what your sources are.

You are fond of command - eh? If awarding money with no performance criteria
is not a scandal for you, what do you think a 'scandal' is?


If you want a *definition* of scandal, I'll go with the dictionary, I
think:

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
scan·dal /'skændl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[skan-dl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun,
verb, -daled, -dal·ing or (especially British) -dalled, -dal·ling.
-noun 1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.
3. damage to reputation; public disgrace.
4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip.
5. a person whose conduct brings disgrace or offense.
-verb (used with object) 6. British Dialect. to defame (someone) by
spreading scandal.
7. Obsolete. to disgrace."

If you want examples:

Profumo

President G. W. Bush's having declared the war in Iraq to be over, when
*still* there are people being killed there.

Union Carbide's mistreatment of the people of Bhopal, India *after* the
disaster which wrecked its plant.

Thalidomide.

Those are scandals.


In your case, without your revealing your source,

I DID reveal the source - in fact YOU asked me to post all 75 messages here.

Well, if that's what it takes for the subject to be properly understood
in this forum, then, since you introduced it here, that may well be
what you have, in fact, to do.
The point is that *in importing the topic here* you placed *yourself*
under an obligation which you have singularly failed to fulfil.

Now you know the source, which remains uncontested, what does it mean to you
to now understand that this is from USCF members?

It means exactly what I have just said. Ok, it's from USCF members...
but *where's the beef, Phil*? Why is it a scandal? Is it a scandal
because you would have spent the money differently?
Is it a scandal because how the money got to be spent was not *your*
decision? How does your characterising it as a scandal *help* the USCF
and its members? These are all questions which,
merely by dint of your having introduced the topic to this forum *it is
your responsibility to answer*.

You fail to answer the
question I put you -0 instead you seek to condemn the reporter.


I just answered it. Or did you mean another question? If you *do* mean
another question, do you intend to tell me which one, or do I have to
guess?


the implication is
that you *invented* it.

So you insist that it does not exist

No, I don't. Look up "implication". Dimwit.

- you fail to look for yourself.

Phil - I DON'T KNOW ***WHERE*** to look. Anyone else would provide *at
least* a link to the appropriate forum, probably to the *thread* in
question. That's what I'd do. You do neither.
This does not help your cause.

Incidentally I *have* looked, I couldn't find it either in Google or in
Yahoo!... it's up to you to *tell* me where to look.


You do
not ask others if it exists, and you continue to make defamatory ideas.


"...make defamatory ideas." What exactly does that mean?

It is you Holsby who is lacking here.

How so?

You are exposed for your trash.

That would explain all the laughter behind my back... no, wait...
*you're* the one who is getting all the bad press... How can this be?

You
who do not look.

I did look. I spent quite some time, in fact.


You call names without knowing anything. You!


Not so. For example, I know that there are 1,609,344mm in a mile. I
know all the words to: "Edith and the Kingpin" by Joni Mitchell.

I know both White's *and* Black's first move in the Sicilian Defence. I
know the valency of all of the "noble gases". I could go on....

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.

The HOUSLBY CHALLENGE: Specifically let me turn this on you - and if you
wish to state that the material exists, then presumably you will retract
your [abstract] ****-talk and calm down, otherwise the term net-nazi suits
you well.

I wait your response.


You "wait" my response, eh? You're quite sure that, for example, you
don't "weight" my response? OK.

Incidentally, I could weasel out of this simply on the grounds that you
misspelt my name...AGAIN... but I'm not going to do that.

One thing... what *exactly* have you challenged me to do, here? Please
express it in plain English, the above is gibberish.

I promise, as soon as I find out *exactly* WHAT THE **** THE CHALLENGE
ACTUALLY REQUIRES OF ME.... I'm onto it.

Mark

Mark Houlsby wrote:

(Snip)

You call names without knowing anything. You!


Not so. For example, I know that there are 1,609,344mm in a mile. I
know all the words to: "Edith and the Kingpin" by Joni Mitchell.

I know both White's *and* Black's first move in the Sicilian Defence. I
know the valency of all of the "noble gases". I could go on....

Somewhere in Cornwall:

Mabel. (coming forward)
Hold, monsters! Ere your pirate caravanserai
Proceed, against our will, to wed us all,
Just bear in mind that we are Wards in Chancery,
And father is Mark Houlsby!

Samuel. (cowed)
We'd better pause, or danger may befall,
Their father is Mark Houlsby.

Girls.
Yes, yes; he is Mark Houlsby!

Mark Houlsby:
Yes, yes, I am Mark Houlsby!

Samuel.
For he is Mark Houlsby!

All.
He is! Hurrah for Mark Houlsby!

Mark Houlsby:
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be Mark Houlsby!

All.
It is! Hurrah for Mark Houlsby"

SONG

I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,
I know the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus' uniform:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery-
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy-
You'll say a better Mark Houlsby has never sat a-gee.

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby.

The Historian wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

(Snip)

You call names without knowing anything. You!


Not so. For example, I know that there are 1,609,344mm in a mile. I
know all the words to: "Edith and the Kingpin" by Joni Mitchell.

I know both White's *and* Black's first move in the Sicilian Defence. I
know the valency of all of the "noble gases". I could go on....

Somewhere in Cornwall:

Mabel. (coming forward)
Hold, monsters! Ere your pirate caravanserai
Proceed, against our will, to wed us all,
Just bear in mind that we are Wards in Chancery,
And father is Mark Houlsby!

Samuel. (cowed)
We'd better pause, or danger may befall,
Their father is Mark Houlsby.

Girls.
Yes, yes; he is Mark Houlsby!

Mark Houlsby:
Yes, yes, I am Mark Houlsby!

Samuel.
For he is Mark Houlsby!

All.
He is! Hurrah for Mark Houlsby!

Mark Houlsby:
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be Mark Houlsby!

All.
It is! Hurrah for Mark Houlsby"

SONG

I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,
I know the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus' uniform:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery-
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy-
You'll say a better Mark Houlsby has never sat a-gee.

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Mark Houlsby.

Bruceski!