"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

Innes objects to anyone pointing out that he "works with Susan Polgar"
or is connected to Truong, but he and Rob know them well enough that
they can "witness to their character?" As Larry Parr would say,
"lovin' it!"

Another lie from a liar who does not quote me, nor any context for his
statement.

I do not object to it. I wrote it. What's the matter with that? Brennan of
course, cuts the rest of the message since he prefers to distort
everything - and here I think he is very willing to deliberately in public
distort the path of justice.

Brennan has a

DEMONSTRATED stalking pattern hint on several fixed subjects.

And if I catch a few rascals here who are drawn to this subject, by the
strange means I employ, I don't care if no-one else thinks at all. If no-one
thinks Brennan's behavior [not what he says, but how he behaves] deserves
special attention, special in this instance, then no-one thinks anything
much.

Has Neil Brennan ever written anything about chess that does not seek to
stir up hatred among other posters? Can he write 3 messages without abusing
someone? Or resort to distortions and lying? Pick any 3!

This is all about you Neil. Really! people are noting these interactions.
Pity you accused me of abusing my own family, after Xganon, who actually
only followed your posts.

Curious!

Phil Innes

On Oct 12, 9:45 am, Rob wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:12 am, The Historian wrote:

On Oct 12, 8:27 am, Rob wrote:

On Oct 12, 5:06 am, The Historian wrote:

On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, wrote:

On Oct 11, 2:13 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

wrote in message

roups.com...

Thanks, but I doubt I'm up to trying to make sense out of Phil's
hallucinations...at least not for free. It reminds me too much of
sifting through drug-addicts' memoirs for evidence.

Brave comments by a brave anon! Willing to prosecute someone in public, but
who can't write their own name!

And YOU think yours are appreciable comments on justice?

You are a coward, sir, ma'am.

Phil

Sorry Phil, I'm not under examination here, Truong, Sloan, et. al.
are.

You, however, of your own free will, you identify yourself (with the
motive that it will somehow lend credence to your point/argument?) and
in doing so, bring yourself under examination. I do not. By remaining
a low-level of anonymity, I allow/require that you examine the
validity of my contention alone, on it's own merit without playing any
of these childish ad hominem games that you and your group is so fond
of.

By hiding behind your persona, and not on the merit-or lack therof-
you sir are a coward, and a bully.

YES! YES! YES!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The logic fails. Here in the South we say "That dog don't hunt".
Surely one can hide behind a persona. However when it comes to the
honesty of an argument one must consider a point of view. Without that
it becomes difficult to determine the motivation behind the argument.
Intellectually dishonest arguments from people with masked identities
is only so much graffitti on the back of a warehouse wall painted in
the dark of night.
Rob

I can't agree. Knowing that Innes has connections to Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong doesn't make his arguments against the Mottershead report
any less or more absurd

It also does not make them any less correct. I don't believe he has
said anything definitively one way or the other about it.

; it only provides a possible explanation for
his making them.

Possible explanation, yes; not probable though. Phil has expressed, as
I have seen written, his doubt that Paul would have made those posts
based upon his knowledge of Paul character.

The Fake Sloan swears, the Real Sloan does not.There is only one
person to my knowledge who has ever posted to RGC who has routinely
used the type of language the Fake Sloan used. You can do a search for
those swear words in google groups and you will see that a certain
poster comes to light along with the Fake Sam.
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rob, let's set our differences of opinion aside for a moment, and as
they say in Greenville, SC let's get to the meat of this issue.
Fact: A faker raised bloody hell in Sam Sloan's, Roy Gordon's, and
several other users names. They used to hunt types like this down with
dogs in SC, but this is the Internet age, so us modern-day hunters,
farmers, trappers, and detectives have to use new methods to snare our
quarry.

At this point, I don't know who it did it. Mike doesn't know who did
it, and I take your word for it that you don't know who it was. Phil
Innes? No comment, he has a conflict of interest, he knows some of the
litigants so we'll recuse him from. So, as the three of us who have no
contact of interest in this matter, can look at it impartially. So
what do we really have?

1) Sam Sloan is an self-styled enigma, and generally pretty
incomprehensible.
2) Brian Mottershead posted incriminating evidence pointing toward
Truong as the fake poster on the USCF website.

So far, we have seen a mountain of pretty inconclusive, opinionated,
garden-variety attacks against all parties in this, and Mike has only
tabulated the ones made against Mottershead's report. Perhaps we
should start a list about the absurd attacks made against Polgar and
Truong? Would you do it in a new thread, please? I agree that we
should examine all sides, so instead of trying to argue them into this
list, let's make another list. Let's try and look at this impartially
from every implicated party's point of view.

1) A list of possible Sloan connections-motives
2) A list of Truong-Polgar connections-motives -- a side item is
Polgar's ex-husband Jacob Shutzman, they divorced in mid-2006, so how
does heplay into this mess? We can't just ignore him, did he do it,
could he have done all this, and if so, what was/is his motive--
revenge?

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:17:03 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


So, Phil, you are saying the ideas in the list AREN'T stupid,

No, I am saying you dismiss them. Which is what you cut. You make them
stupid, as it were. That's all.

No, Phil. I just molded them into a slightly different shape. Kinda
like sculpting a turd.

Dissing a bunch of stupid arguments against evidence

What does that sentence mean?

Phil, it's not a sentence. It's a phrase.

Actually two sentences, each with verb and subject...

The part you asked about was a phrase.

I am asking about your evident and rather willful dismissal of what other
people write - eg, 'stupid arguments', which, right or wrong is your, Mike
Murray's, dismissive comment. right?

Well, sure. I dismiss them 'cause they're stupid. What should I do
-- fawn over them?

And sure, people say things which are not perspective, yet you have
eliminated ALL 20+ things that others have said.

This sentence doesn't make sense as written, but I'm inferring you
believe a list good statements could be constructed. Have at it,
then. Instead of "The List of the Blind Monkey", build your own "List
of the Bug-eyed Parrot" or whatever. Publish it. As Perot said,
we're all ears.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:50:58 -0700, Robertus Phonius Michelius
wrote:

some stuff in error

Sorry, Phil. I forgot to turn off the phony persona I constructed for
Rob's benefit. Apologies.

"Robertus Phonius Michelius" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:17:03 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


So, Phil, you are saying the ideas in the list AREN'T stupid,

No, I am saying you dismiss them. Which is what you cut. You make them
stupid, as it were. That's all.

No, Phil. I just molded them into a slightly different shape. Kinda
like sculpting a turd.

Says 'Robert Phonius', another ****** can't say his own name, but is
incredibly anxious to disparage those who can.

What a ****ing farse!

Phil Innes

Dissing a bunch of stupid arguments against evidence

What does that sentence mean?

Phil, it's not a sentence. It's a phrase.

Actually two sentences, each with verb and subject...

The part you asked about was a phrase.

I am asking about your evident and rather willful dismissal of what other
people write - eg, 'stupid arguments', which, right or wrong is your, Mike
Murray's, dismissive comment. right?

Well, sure. I dismiss them 'cause they're stupid. What should I do
-- fawn over them?

And sure, people say things which are not perspective, yet you have
eliminated ALL 20+ things that others have said.

This sentence doesn't make sense as written, but I'm inferring you
believe a list good statements could be constructed. Have at it,
then. Instead of "The List of the Blind Monkey", build your own "List
of the Bug-eyed Parrot" or whatever. Publish it. As Perot said,
we're all ears.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:45:49 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Says 'Robert Phonius', another ****** can't say his own name, but is
incredibly anxious to disparage those who can.

What's this "Robert" stuff. Robertus tells me only his friends use
his nickname.

Mike, you are not clever enough to get away with anything much. Nevermind
verbalisms. Someone is pulling your strings, dude, but you can;t even admit
you have any - cept that one time when you were so annoyed at being
impersonated.

You catch this? You are being duped dude. Take a breath or carry on. Just
spare me this juvenile intellectual ****, as is you actually cared who did
what, rather than reactively say how you feel about what was done.

I know you think you are beyond manipulation - itself not a good sign.But I
don't hate you or resent what you write, which you seem to think I do. I
have my own perspective which I respect as much as I am sure you do yours.
At some emotional level I share with you this tetigistu acu, this 'touching
with a needle' this 'hitting the nail on the head'.

Emotionally you speak to what, I feel, is the general sense here in this
group of how people feel about deceit. While you continue your writing,
without noting that I support you, and others, in this, and I do mean not
noting - not acknowledging, not admitting, and instead making this the cause
of enmity, because it is not admitted!

What I suggest to you is not some clef on my own tune, but thousands of
years old - event he ****ing-awful Romans avowed it

de fide et officio judicis non reciptur quastio

which means that the good faith of the judge should not be questioned.

Let us question it then, though, if you have not good faith to such resort
to law, you are marked such - understand? And here, apart from your
rationalisations, I say you direct, someone is pulling your strings, so you
want to avoid such process - and should you continue in it, then you are
complicit in it.

That means, you want what you want more than any justice.

Now **** off, and stop writing me **** about your very meagre understanding
of even yourself, nevermind due process under law.

Phil Innes



"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:50:58 -0700, Robertus Phonius Michelius
wrote:

some stuff in error

Sorry, Phil. I forgot to turn off the phony persona I constructed for
Rob's benefit. Apologies.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:02:48 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Someone is pulling your strings, dude,

You catch this? You are being duped dude.

I know you think you are beyond manipulation - itself not a good sign.

, apart from your
rationalisations, I say you direct, someone is pulling your strings

You know, Phil, you've become so fixated on McCarthy that you've
neglected to notice you've turned into a version of Robert Welch.
People are being "duped"; they are honest dupes.

Next you'll be calling us "Sloan-symps".

On Oct 12, 9:45 am, Rob wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:12 am, The Historian wrote:



On Oct 12, 8:27 am, Rob wrote:

On Oct 12, 5:06 am, The Historian wrote:

On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, wrote:

On Oct 11, 2:13 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

wrote in message

roups.com...

Thanks, but I doubt I'm up to trying to make sense out of Phil's
hallucinations...at least not for free. It reminds me too much of
sifting through drug-addicts' memoirs for evidence.

Brave comments by a brave anon! Willing to prosecute someone in public, but
who can't write their own name!

And YOU think yours are appreciable comments on justice?

You are a coward, sir, ma'am.

Phil

Sorry Phil, I'm not under examination here, Truong, Sloan, et. al.
are.

You, however, of your own free will, you identify yourself (with the
motive that it will somehow lend credence to your point/argument?) and
in doing so, bring yourself under examination. I do not. By remaining
a low-level of anonymity, I allow/require that you examine the
validity of my contention alone, on it's own merit without playing any
of these childish ad hominem games that you and your group is so fond
of.

By hiding behind your persona, and not on the merit-or lack therof-
you sir are a coward, and a bully.

YES! YES! YES!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The logic fails. Here in the South we say "That dog don't hunt".
Surely one can hide behind a persona. However when it comes to the
honesty of an argument one must consider a point of view. Without that
it becomes difficult to determine the motivation behind the argument.
Intellectually dishonest arguments from people with masked identities
is only so much graffitti on the back of a warehouse wall painted in
the dark of night.
Rob

I can't agree. Knowing that Innes has connections to Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong doesn't make his arguments against the Mottershead report
any less or more absurd

It also does not make them any less correct. I don't believe he has
said anything definitively one way or the other about it.

; it only provides a possible explanation for
his making them.

Possible explanation, yes; not probable though. Phil has expressed, as
I have seen written, his doubt that Paul would have made those posts
based upon his knowledge of Paul character.

The Fake Sloan swears, the Real Sloan does not.There is only one
person to my knowledge who has ever posted to RGC who has routinely
used the type of language the Fake Sloan used. You can do a search for
those swear words in google groups and you will see that a certain
poster comes to light along with the Fake Sam.
- Hide quoted text -



- Show quoted text -

I'll try this one more time with references:

Rob, let's set our differences of opinion aside for a moment, and as
they say in Greenville, SC let's get to the meat of this issue.

Fact: A faker raised bloody hell in Sam Sloan's, Roy Gordon's, and
several other users names. They used to hunt types like this down with
dogs in SC, but this is the Internet age, so modern-day hunters,
farmers, trappers, and detectives have to use new methods to snare our
quarry.

At this point, I don't know whom it did it. Mike doesn't know who did
it, and I take your word for it that you don't know who it was. Phil
Innes? No comment, he has a conflict of interest, he knows some of the
litigants so we'll recuse him from this investigation. So, as the
three of us who have no contact of interest in this matter, we can do
it impartially.

So, what do we really have?

1) Sam Sloan is a self-styled enigma, and generally pretty
incomprehensible.
2) Brian Mottershead posted incriminating evidence pointing toward
Truong as the fake poster on the USCF web site.

So far, we have seen a mountain of pretty inconclusive, opinionated,
garden-variety attacks against all parties in this, and Mike has only
tabulated the ones made against Mottershead's report. Perhaps we
should start a list about the absurd attacks made against Polgar and
Truong? Would you do it in a new thread, please? I agree that we
should examine all sides of this issue, so instead of trying to argue
them into this list, let's make another list. Let's try and look at
this impartially from every implicated party's point of view.

1) A list of Sloan attacks-connections-motives
2) A list of Truong-Polgar attacks-connections-motives

This is an interesting positive review that Sam Sloan wrote about
Polgar's column on March 22, 2006-also read comments.
http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-anal...rsy_99772.html
http://www.talkaboutgaming.com/group...ges/12618.html

http://mottershead.info/uscfdocs/
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...4e0596b9524e6c

On Oct 12, 9:45 am, Rob wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:12 am, The Historian wrote:



On Oct 12, 8:27 am, Rob wrote:

On Oct 12, 5:06 am, The Historian wrote:

On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, wrote:

On Oct 11, 2:13 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

wrote in message

roups.com...

Thanks, but I doubt I'm up to trying to make sense out of Phil's
hallucinations...at least not for free. It reminds me too much of
sifting through drug-addicts' memoirs for evidence.

Brave comments by a brave anon! Willing to prosecute someone in public, but
who can't write their own name!

And YOU think yours are appreciable comments on justice?

You are a coward, sir, ma'am.

Phil

Sorry Phil, I'm not under examination here, Truong, Sloan, et. al.
are.

You, however, of your own free will, you identify yourself (with the
motive that it will somehow lend credence to your point/argument?) and
in doing so, bring yourself under examination. I do not. By remaining
a low-level of anonymity, I allow/require that you examine the
validity of my contention alone, on it's own merit without playing any
of these childish ad hominem games that you and your group is so fond
of.

By hiding behind your persona, and not on the merit-or lack therof-
you sir are a coward, and a bully.

YES! YES! YES!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The logic fails. Here in the South we say "That dog don't hunt".
Surely one can hide behind a persona. However when it comes to the
honesty of an argument one must consider a point of view. Without that
it becomes difficult to determine the motivation behind the argument.
Intellectually dishonest arguments from people with masked identities
is only so much graffitti on the back of a warehouse wall painted in
the dark of night.
Rob

I can't agree. Knowing that Innes has connections to Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong doesn't make his arguments against the Mottershead report
any less or more absurd

It also does not make them any less correct. I don't believe he has
said anything definitively one way or the other about it.

; it only provides a possible explanation for
his making them.

Possible explanation, yes; not probable though. Phil has expressed, as
I have seen written, his doubt that Paul would have made those posts
based upon his knowledge of Paul character.

The Fake Sloan swears, the Real Sloan does not.There is only one
person to my knowledge who has ever posted to RGC who has routinely
used the type of language the Fake Sloan used. You can do a search for
those swear words in google groups and you will see that a certain
poster comes to light along with the Fake Sam.
- Hide quoted text -



- Show quoted text -

Rob, let's set our differences of opinion aside for a moment, and as
they say in Greenville, SC let's get to the meat of this issue.

Fact: A faker raised bloody hell in Sam Sloan's, Roy Gordon's, and
several other users names. They used to hunt types like this down with
dogs in SC, but this is the Internet age, so modern-day hunters,
farmers, trappers, and detectives have to use new methods to snare our
quarry.

At this point, I don't know who did it. Mike doesn't know who did it,
and I take your word for it that you don't know who it was. Phil
Innes? No comment, he has a conflict of interest, he knows some of the
litigants so we'll recuse him from this investigation. So, as the
three of us who have no contact of interest in this matter, we can do
it impartially.

So, what do we really have?

1) Sam Sloan is a self-styled enigma, and generally pretty
incomprehensible.
2) Brian Mottershead posted incriminating evidence pointing toward
Truong as the fake poster on the USCF web site.

So far, we have seen a mountain of pretty inconclusive, opinionated,
garden-variety attacks against all parties in this, and Mike has only
tabulated the ones made against Mottershead's report. Perhaps we
should start a list about the absurd attacks made against Polgar and
Truong? Would you do it in a new thread, please? I agree that we
should examine all sides of this issue, so instead of trying to argue
them into this list, let's make another list. Let's try and look at
this impartially from every implicated party's point of view.

1) A list of Sloan attacks-connections-motives
2) A list of Truong-Polgar attacks-connections-motives

This is an interesting positive review that Sam Sloan wrote about
Polgar's column on March 22, 2006-also read comments.
http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-anal...rsy_99772.html
http://www.talkaboutgaming.com/group...ges/12618.html

http://mottershead.info/uscfdocs/
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...4e0596b9524e6c