"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
7 abuse of speech.
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
7 with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
7 the examples?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):

7 Is Louis Blair asking me if he can understand what I wrote?
7 I think he is asking me that. OTOH, he could be asking me
7 if I 'claim' I wrote what I did.
7
7 Louis Blair doesn't understand where these examples are
7 from what I wrote, even though I wrote Nolandland, which
7 he forgot to snip ;(

_
Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be a
specific example. He, of course, prefers not to.

I win! He has asked me to identify what he snipped - and though I wrote whay
he snipped, and then wrote that he would ask me to be specific about his
snip, he concludes I prefer not to be 'specific' - though maybe he means I
will not repost the specific text that he cut? Anyway, only I can do it,
whatever the it is.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
7 wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
7 vague, would he? ...

I wrote: I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...

and Louis Blair wrote stardate (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800): : What
"reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately vague, would he?
....

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):

7 Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his
7 usual thing of cutting text then asking a question about it,

_
Nonsense. I quoted the text that I was asking about.
See above, where it is quoted again.

The text that mentioned USCF was cut. Therefore we learn two things - one,
Louis insists it is somewhere above, though I pointedly said it was cut, and
two, he has requoted the wrong text which quite obviously he can't
understand, since as I wrote above - it's the wrong text.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):

7 and unusual for him, or them, has come immediately tot
7 he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would hate to
7 be thought of as vague by them.
7
7 Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the
7 backside of the moon? Perhaps 'we' could think which of
7 those are more likely locations, but most likely 'we' won't
7 and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
7 and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til
7 christmas and win another $5 bet.

_
It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does not
want to be specific about this matter.

Be specific about what matter? Where the backside of the moon is? Be
specific about if Louis should think about where it could be, or even that
the text that was cut, which ipso facto was a specific to itself, or if
asking some or all these questions is nothing I want to be specific about
[again].

Is Louis Blair still claiming he is specific about any of those, or maybe
something else? Something lost, something blue, something in Nottingham, or
something to do with 'matter'?

There is a lot of money riding on if he feels compelled to answer.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
7 abuse of speech.
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
7 with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
7 the examples?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 Is Louis Blair asking me if he can understand what I wrote?
7 I think he is asking me that. OTOH, he could be asking me
7 if I 'claim' I wrote what I did.
7
7 Louis Blair doesn't understand where these examples are
7 from what I wrote, even though I wrote Nolandland, which
7 he forgot to snip ;(
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be a
7 specific example. He, of course, prefers not to.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 I win! He has asked me to identify what he snipped - and
7 though I wrote whay he snipped, and then wrote that he
7 would ask me to be specific about his snip,

_
Nonsense. I am asking Phil Innes to be specific about
his charges against the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 he concludes I prefer not to be 'specific' - though maybe
7 he means I will not repost the specific text that he cut?

_
No. I see nothing that I would call specific in any of the
notes mentioned above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Anyway, only I can do it, whatever the it is. ...

_
"Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers
to be a specific example." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
11:20:00 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
7 wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
7 vague, would he? ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his
7 usual thing of cutting text then asking a question about it,
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 Nonsense. I quoted the text that I was asking about. See
7 above, where it is quoted again.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 ... The text that mentioned USCF was cut.

_
One instance of Phil Innes mentioning USCF is reproduced
above (and has been reproduced in my previous notes in
this exchange). In any event, mentioning USCF does not
tell us what "reporting about Tanner", Phil Innes was writing
about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Therefore we learn two things - one, Louis insists it is
7 somewhere above, though I pointedly said it was cut, and
7 two, he has requoted the wrong text which quite obviously
7 he can't understand, since as I wrote above - it's the wrong
7 text.

_
What I wrote:
_
"I quoted the text that I was asking about."
- Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800)
_
That statement is true.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 and unusual for him, or them, has come immediately tot
7 he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would hate to
7 be thought of as vague by them.
7
7 Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the
7 backside of the moon? Perhaps 'we' could think which of
7 those are more likely locations, but most likely 'we' won't
7 and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
7 and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til
7 christmas and win another $5 bet.
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does
7 not want to be specific about this matter.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Be specific about what matter?

_
It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does not
want to specifically identify the "reporting about Tanner"
that he was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Where the backside of the moon is?

_
No. See above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Be specific about if Louis should think about where it
7 could be,

_
Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be
"less-than-honest reporting about Tanner".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 or even that the text that was cut, which ipso facto was
7 a specific to itself, or if asking some or all these questions
7 is nothing I want to be specific about [again].

_
Mentioning USCF does not tell us what "reporting about
Tanner", Phil Innes was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Is Louis Blair still claiming he is specific about any of
7 those, or maybe something else? Something lost, something
7 blue, something in Nottingham, or something to do with 'matter'?
7
7 There is a lot of money riding on if he feels compelled to answer.

_
I am seeking identification of specific examples of the moderator
behavior to which Phil Innes objects. I am also seeking a specific
identification of the supposed "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner".

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
7 abuse of speech.
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
7 with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
7 the examples?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 Is Louis Blair asking me if he can understand what I wrote?
7 I think he is asking me that. OTOH, he could be asking me
7 if I 'claim' I wrote what I did.
7
7 Louis Blair doesn't understand where these examples are
7 from what I wrote, even though I wrote Nolandland, which
7 he forgot to snip ;(
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be a
7 specific example. He, of course, prefers not to.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 I win! He has asked me to identify what he snipped - and
7 though I wrote whay he snipped, and then wrote that he
7 would ask me to be specific about his snip,

_
Nonsense. I am asking Phil Innes to be specific about
his charges against the moderator.

Louis snipped not my charges, but what USCF members said at Nolandland, and
now says this its nonsense, while repeating his request to identify what he
snipped.

Of course what Louis might mean [??] is that he can't relate my 'charges',
to use his term, to anything else because he snipped the reference which
would make the question unnecesssary. Can Louis Blair quote my use of the
word 'charges'?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 he concludes I prefer not to be 'specific' - though maybe
7 he means I will not repost the specific text that he cut?

_
No. I see nothing that I would call specific in any of the
notes mentioned above.

Once again Louis thinks its worth writing to this newsgroup to say he
ignores what he cut, to state that he doesn't see anything specific in what
he chose to leave in.

I wonder what his decision basis for cutting it was in the first place!??
Since that is the only material that he seems interested in, while plainly
ignoring uncut material.

Is this a sort of inverse editing of content? Perhaps Captain Kingston-ite
could comment?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Anyway, only I can do it, whatever the it is. ...

_
"Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers
to be a specific example." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
11:20:00 -0800)

The specific example[s] in question are the ones cut by Louis Blair. The
reason to post them in the first place was to provide specific examples. Now
Louis Blair falsely says that only I can identify them, but after posting
them anyone could. In fact Louis Blair has already identified them because
he was the one who chsoe to cut them!

Our Louis is like one of those evil-geniuses in a Superman movie, waving the
Kingston-ite in front of us, by asking questions about what he himself
dissapeared!

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
7 wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
7 vague, would he? ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his
7 usual thing of cutting text then asking a question about it,
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 Nonsense. I quoted the text that I was asking about. See
7 above, where it is quoted again.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 ... The text that mentioned USCF was cut.

_
One instance of Phil Innes mentioning USCF is reproduced
above (and has been reproduced in my previous notes in
this exchange).

Louis pretends to be honest by saying one instance is 'reproduced' above,
and maybe if someone or other can 'reproduce' the other instance, the one he
now questions, then he would be happy?

In any event, mentioning USCF does not
tell us what "reporting about Tanner", Phil Innes was writing
about.

I note that is not a quote! But it is also not an inquiry. Neither is it a
dispute. It is a question that could be resolved by actually looking at
USCF's website thereby removing the need to ask questions as if to doubt the
source. Which is pretty much what I wrote before.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Therefore we learn two things - one, Louis insists it is
7 somewhere above, though I pointedly said it was cut, and
7 two, he has requoted the wrong text which quite obviously
7 he can't understand, since as I wrote above - it's the wrong
7 text.

_
What I wrote:
_
"I quoted the text that I was asking about."
- Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800)
_
That statement is true.

Louis Blair does not deny that he cut the text which he knows contains the
reference he now asks me for, since he made a SPECIFIC decision to cut that
material himself,
but continues to say
like a demented Danny Kaye
that in the text he left uncut the reference he wants is not in it!

Furthermore, even though I wrote that his text is the wrong text, he
continues to blandly assert that the reference is not in the wrong text,
while not denying that he himself cut it from 'the right text.'

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 and unusual for him, or them, has come immediately tot
7 he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would hate to
7 be thought of as vague by them.
7
7 Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the
7 backside of the moon? Perhaps 'we' could think which of
7 those are more likely locations, but most likely 'we' won't
7 and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
7 and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til
7 christmas and win another $5 bet.
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does
7 not want to be specific about this matter.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Be specific about what matter?

_
It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does not
want to specifically identify the "reporting about Tanner"
that he was writing about.

What specificity is being inquired about that is not already written but
excised in the cut text?

It is of course not surprising that Louis Blair will cut something, not deny
he cut it, then continue to ask others to put it back! And furthermore, that
he would not go look himself, since surely if I could it, he could.

What what exactly he wants to know about the reporting of Tanner
specifically, he doesn't mention.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Where the backside of the moon is?

_
No. See above.

Louis must think that ' does not want to specifically identify the
"reporting about Tanner" ' is a question, or that it can be answered.
Whatever I wrote before is not specific enough for him, since he now asks
for something else, but what?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Be specific about if Louis should think about where it
7 could be,

_
Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be
"less-than-honest reporting about Tanner".

And only Phil Innes did.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 or even that the text that was cut, which ipso facto was
7 a specific to itself, or if asking some or all these questions
7 is nothing I want to be specific about [again].

_
Mentioning USCF does not tell us what "reporting about
Tanner", Phil Innes was writing about.

Mentioning my "reporting about Tanner" does not tell me what Louis Blair is
asking.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):

7 Is Louis Blair still claiming he is specific about any of
7 those, or maybe something else? Something lost, something
7 blue, something in Nottingham, or something to do with 'matter'?
7
7 There is a lot of money riding on if he feels compelled to answer.

_
I am seeking identification of specific examples of the moderator
behavior to which Phil Innes objects.

Louis cut reactions to the moderator, is he asking for verbatim moderator
text? Is he asking because he can't view them himself? Or is he asking
because he doubts why members reacted as he did?

And what does 'seeking identification' actually mean?

I am also seeking a specific
identification of the supposed "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner".

So when Louis Blair subtracts what I already wrote from what he wants to
know, I presume he will then share whatever still puzzles him in clear-text,
so to speak, as well as stating why he wants someone else to provide him
with that information, especially since he seems in so much private doubt of
its veracity.

It is not surprising that after several thousand words already, Louis Blair
has not said why he is asking anyone anything.

10 days til Christmas!!

Phil Innes

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


On Dec 15, 10:05 am, "Chess One" wrote:

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

There are many posts and announcements on USCF's website. Looking
there does not tell us to which *_specific_* posts and/or announcements
you refer.

Actually, the thread was stopped, but another started in its place
Korenman and other things removed from Lux thread

At last viewing it was the top topic.

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

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

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

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

And Kingston - this is the wrong thread to write this in, since bastions.

Now, that's just page one of 7 pages. Are you catching the drift? This
thread is now titled:

Korenman and other things removed from Lux thread

which might be evident to your diligent researches.

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?

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

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

Another poster is getting at Beatriz Marinello - who raised all the original
issues, referring to her Fide alliance.

On the next page the moderator has used outside type IN RED to shout at Sam
Sloan. This BIG RED is met by a new poster's comment
"The Tanstaafl comet is back; look at it going around the Sloan star, and
what a dysfunctional solar system we have."
Which obtains an apology for knee-jerk reactions and 'over-reations' from
the [ROFL] moderator

But then we have thread-drift, and Bill Goichberg plus other politicos
begine to talk about being reimbursed for expenses, and eventually fizzles
when someone called 'rfeditor' writes [in a moderated forum] "You must know
as well as I do what those line items were for. I'd really like to phrase
this more harshly (something on the order of "Are you really a moron or an
amazingly lifelike imitation?"), but that might be considered a personal
attack."

To which the Moderator [ROFL] says NOTHING.


--

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."

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.
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.

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.

On Dec 15, 11:34 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in oglegroups.com...

On Dec 15, 10:05 am, "Chess One" wrote:

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

There are many posts and announcements on USCF's website. Looking
there does not tell us to which *_specific_* posts and/or announcements
you refer.

Actually, the thread was stopped, but another started in its place
Korenman and other things removed from Lux thread

At last viewing it was the top topic.

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

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

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

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

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.

And Kingston - this is the wrong thread to write this in, since bastions.

Is that sentence supposed to make sense?

Now, that's just page one of 7 pages. Are you catching the drift? This
thread is now titled:

Korenman and other things removed from Lux thread

which might be evident to your diligent researches.

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.

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

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

Another poster is getting at Beatriz Marinello - who raised all the original
issues, referring to her Fide alliance.

On the next page the moderator has used outside type IN RED to shout at Sam
Sloan. This BIG RED is met by a new poster's comment
"The Tanstaafl comet is back; look at it going around the Sloan star, and
what a dysfunctional solar system we have."
Which obtains an apology for knee-jerk reactions and 'over-reations' from
the [ROFL] moderator

But then we have thread-drift, and Bill Goichberg plus other politicos
begine to talk about being reimbursed for expenses, and eventually fizzles
when someone called 'rfeditor' writes [in a moderated forum] "You must know
as well as I do what those line items were for. I'd really like to phrase
this more harshly (something on the order of "Are you really a moron or an
amazingly lifelike imitation?"), but that might be considered a personal
attack."

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.
Furthermore, I see nothing in the above at all relevant to the claim
of "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner." Given our Phil's track
record as a journalist, such a charge from him is rather like Khruschev
calling someone a Communist.

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
7 abuse of speech.
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
7 with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
7 the examples?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 Is Louis Blair asking me if he can understand what I wrote?
7 I think he is asking me that. OTOH, he could be asking me
7 if I 'claim' I wrote what I did.
7
7 Louis Blair doesn't understand where these examples are
7 from what I wrote, even though I wrote Nolandland, which
7 he forgot to snip ;(
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be a
7 specific example. He, of course, prefers not to.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 I win! He has asked me to identify what he snipped - and
7 though I wrote whay he snipped, and then wrote that he
7 would ask me to be specific about his snip,
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 Nonsense. I am asking Phil Innes to be specific about
7 his charges against the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis snipped not my charges, but what USCF members
7 said at Nolandland,

_
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 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.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 and now says this its nonsense,

_
I have used "nonsense" in connection with the Phil Innes
pretense of describing what I wrote.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 while repeating his request to identify what he snipped.

_
I am not requesting Phil Innes to identify what I snipped.
I already know what I snipped.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Of course what Louis might mean [??] is that he can't
7 relate my 'charges', to use his term, to anything else
7 because he snipped the reference which would make
7 the question unnecesssary.

_
Mentioning USCF (and Donna Alarie and Timothy Sawmiller
quotes) does not identify specific examples of moderator
behavior to which Phil Innes objects. Neither quote
expressed disapproval of any specific action by the
moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Can Louis Blair quote my use of the word 'charges'?

_
I did not claim that Phil Innes used the word, "charges".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 he concludes I prefer not to be 'specific' - though maybe
7 he means I will not repost the specific text that he cut?
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 No. I see nothing that I would call specific in any of the
7 notes mentioned above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Once again Louis thinks its worth writing to this
7 newsgroup to say he ignores what he cut, to state that
7 he doesn't see anything specific in what he chose to
7 leave in.

_
Nonsense again. I referred to the NOTES mentioned
above, not the QUOTES mentioned above. In those
NOTES (the Phil Innes notes dated by Google as
Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT, Thu, 14 Dec 2006
13:21:30 GMT, and Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT),
I saw nothing that identified specific examples of
moderator behavior to which Phil Innes objects.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 I wonder what his decision basis for cutting it was in
7 the first place!?? Since that is the only material that
7 he seems interested in, while plainly ignoring uncut
7 material.
7
7 Is this a sort of inverse editing of content? Perhaps
7 Captain Kingston-ite could comment?

_
I cut such things as the Phil Innes comments on GM
production that were not helpful as far as identifying
specific examples of moderator behavior to which Phil
Innes objects (and not helpful identifying the supposed
"less-than-honest reporting about Tanner").

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Anyway, only I can do it, whatever the it is. ...
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 "Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers
7 to be a specific example." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
7 11:20:00 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 The specific example[s] in question are the ones cut
7 by Louis Blair. The reason to post them in the first place
7 was to provide specific examples. Now Louis Blair falsely
7 says that only I can identify them, but after posting them
7 anyone could. In fact Louis Blair has already identified
7 them because he was the one who chsoe to cut them!
7
7 Our Louis is like one of those evil-geniuses in a Superman
7 movie, waving the Kingston-ite in front of us, by asking
7 questions about what he himself dissapeared!

_
Mentioning USCF (and Donna Alarie and Timothy Sawmiller
quotes) does not identify specific examples of moderator
behavior to which Phil Innes objects. Neither quote
expressed disapproval of any specific action by the
moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
7 wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
7 vague, would he? ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his
7 usual thing of cutting text then asking a question about it,
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 Nonsense. I quoted the text that I was asking about. See
7 above, where it is quoted again.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 ... The text that mentioned USCF was cut.
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 One instance of Phil Innes mentioning USCF is reproduced
7 above (and has been reproduced in my previous notes in
7 this exchange). In any event, mentioning USCF does not
7 tell us what "reporting about Tanner", Phil Innes was writing
7 about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis pretends to be honest by saying one instance is
7 'reproduced' above, and maybe if someone or other can
7 'reproduce' the other instance, the one he now questions,
7 then he would be happy?

_
Mentioning USCF does not identify the "reporting about
Tanner" that Phil Innes was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 I note that is not a quote!

_
It is a quote from the Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT
note of Phil Innes. See above or check google records.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 But it is also not an inquiry. Neither is it a dispute. It is
7 a question that could be resolved by actually looking at
7 USCF's website thereby removing the need to ask
7 questions as if to doubt the source. Which is pretty
7 much what I wrote before.

_
I HAVE looked at USCF's website and do not know what
supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner" Phil
Innes was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Therefore we learn two things - one, Louis insists it is
7 somewhere above, though I pointedly said it was cut, and
7 two, he has requoted the wrong text which quite obviously
7 he can't understand, since as I wrote above - it's the wrong
7 text.
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 What I wrote:
7
7 "I quoted the text that I was asking about."
7 - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800)
7
7 That statement is true.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis Blair does not deny that he cut the text which
7 he knows contains the reference he now asks me for,
7 since he made a SPECIFIC decision to cut that
7 material himself, but continues to say like a demented
7 Danny Kaye that in the text he left uncut the reference
7 he wants is not in it!
7
7 Furthermore, even though I wrote that his text is the wrong
7 text, he continues to blandly assert that the reference is
7 not in the wrong text, while not denying that he himself cut
7 it from 'the right text.'

_
I see nothing that I would call specific (about examples of
the moderator behavior to which Phil Innes objects or about
the identification of the supposedly "less-than-honest
reporting about Tanner") in any of the Phil Innes notes
with google dates Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT, Thu,
14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT, Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT,
and Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT. (That sentence refers
to BOTH cut and uncut material.)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):
7 and unusual for him, or them, has come immediately tot
7 he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would hate to
7 be thought of as vague by them.
7
7 Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the
7 backside of the moon? Perhaps 'we' could think which of
7 those are more likely locations, but most likely 'we' won't
7 and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
7 and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til
7 christmas and win another $5 bet.
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 11:20:00 -0800):
7 It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does
7 not want to be specific about this matter.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Be specific about what matter?
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does not
7 want to specifically identify the "reporting about Tanner"
7 that he was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 What specificity is being inquired about that is not already
7 written but excised in the cut text?

_
Mentioning USCF does not identify the "reporting about
Tanner" that Phil Innes was writing about. Phil Innes could
be more specific by quoting the first few words of the
supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner"
or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 It is of course not surprising that Louis Blair will cut
7 something, not deny he cut it, then continue to ask
7 others to put it back!

_
At the beginning of EVERY note that I have posted in
this exchange, I have quoted Phil Innes referring to "the
USCF site". I am not asking Phil Innes to put that back.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 And furthermore, that he would not go look himself,
7 since surely if I could it, he could.

_
I HAVE looked and found nothing to support the Phil
Innes moderator and reporting criticism.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 What what exactly he wants to know about the
7 reporting of Tanner specifically, he doesn't mention.

_
"I am ... seeking a specific identification of
the supposed 'less-than-honest reporting
about Tanner'." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
13:19:22 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Where the backside of the moon is?
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 No. See above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis must think that ' does not want to specifically identify
7 the "reporting about Tanner" ' is a question, or that it can be
7 answered. Whatever I wrote before is not specific enough
7 for him, since he now asks for something else, but what?

_
Phil Innes could be more specific by quoting the first few
words of the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner" or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Be specific about if Louis should think about where it
7 could be,
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be
7 "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 And only Phil Innes did.

_
Mentioning USCF does not tell us what "reporting about
Tanner", Phil Innes was writing about. Phil Innes could
be more specific by quoting the first few words of the
supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner"
or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 or even that the text that was cut, which ipso facto was
7 a specific to itself, or if asking some or all these questions
7 is nothing I want to be specific about [again].
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 Mentioning USCF does not tell us what "reporting about
7 Tanner", Phil Innes was writing about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Mentioning my "reporting about Tanner" does not tell me
7 what Louis Blair is asking.

_
"I am ... seeking a specific identification of
the supposed 'less-than-honest reporting
about Tanner'." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006
13:19:22 -0800)
_
Phil Innes could be more specific by quoting the first few
words of the supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner" or by providing a link for its location.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:07:21 GMT):
7 Is Louis Blair still claiming he is specific about any of
7 those, or maybe something else? Something lost, something
7 blue, something in Nottingham, or something to do with 'matter'?
7
7 There is a lot of money riding on if he feels compelled to answer.
_
I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 I am seeking identification of specific examples of the moderator
7 behavior to which Phil Innes objects. I am also seeking a specific
7 identification of the supposed "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Louis cut reactions to the moderator,

_
Phil Innes is accusing me of cutting something that was
not there. The Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT Phil
Innes note did not contain "reactions to the moderator"
other than the comments of Phil Innes himself that I
DID quote. Phil Innes is probably thinking of his Wed,
13 Dec 2006 15:52:36 GMT note 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 Beatriz
Marinello nor Herbert Vaughn is the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 is he asking for verbatim moderator text?

_
"I am seeking identification of specific examples
of the moderator behavior to which Phil Innes
objects." - Louis Blair (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Is he asking because he can't view them himself?

_
I have viewed lots of moderator text, but only Phil Innes
can identify the moderator text to which he objects.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 Or is he asking because he doubts why members
7 reacted as he did?

_
Again, Donna Alarie and Timothy Sawmiller were reacting
to notes of Beatriz Marinello and Herbert Vaughn
(respectively). Neither Beatriz Marinello nor Herbert
Vaughn is the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 And what does 'seeking identification' actually mean?

_
"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 (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:55 GMT):

7 So when Louis Blair subtracts what I already wrote from
7 what he wants to know, I presume he will then share
7 whatever still puzzles him in clear-text, so to speak,
7 as well as stating why he wants someone else to provide
7 him with that information, especially since he seems in
7 so much private doubt of its veracity.
7
7 It is not surprising that after several thousand words
7 already, Louis Blair has not said why he is asking
7 anyone anything. ...

_
I think public attacks should be accompanied by specifics.
Phil Innes wouldn't want us to think that he was being
deliberately vague, would he?

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.
_
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. ...")

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):

7 ... I already wrote these references and Blair cut them. ...

_
Would Phil Innes care to be specific about which previous
Phil Innes note supposedly referred to "their public
announcements"?

_
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? ...

_
"... 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 (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:

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

Applause! Applause!

C. George


"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