"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:30:17 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

The List of the Blind Monkey is one thing and one thing only: A
collection of goofy arguments actually made by people trying to ignore
or disregard the evidence gathered and presented by Brian Mottershead.

It in no way evaluates that evidence or pronounces guilt.

That is less than the truth! The fact is that you add your own dismissive
comment to each and every line, thus eliminating all. Phil Innes

Of course. All items on the List of the Blind Monkey represent stupid
arguments against Mottershead's material. An argument that wasn't
stupid doesn't make the List.

Now, here's the kicker, Phil. Something you've evidently missed.
Dissing a bunch of stupid arguments against evidence

(1) Doesn't necessitate the evidence being true or even reasonable

(2) Doesn't preclude the possibility of valid arguments against the
evidence.

Theoretically this is true, but in reality when people make ludicrous
arguments it is usually because there are no strong arguments to
make. Excepting Phil and Rob's contributions, most of these
are not coming from stupid people - just disappointed ones with
the very human tendency of not wanting to face an unpleasant reality.

While I don't preclude the possibility of it happening in the future,
the number of even remotely credible alternate explanations
to date is zero.



I suggest you try your best to come up with reasonable arguments
against Motterhead's findings. I need some fresh items for my List.


I may discuss these issues elsewhere, and obviously have my opinions
based on what I've read thus far, but

The List stands alone, the List stands alone
And it sticks in your craw like a sharp fish bone
The List stands alone

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:47:01 -0700, "David Kane"
wrote:


Now, here's the kicker, Phil. Something you've evidently missed.
Dissing a bunch of stupid arguments against evidence

(1) Doesn't necessitate the evidence being true or even reasonable

(2) Doesn't preclude the possibility of valid arguments against the
evidence.

Theoretically this is true, but in reality when people make ludicrous
arguments it is usually because there are no strong arguments to
make.

Yup. If you can refute evidence, you cut right to the quick and do it
-- not start waxing indignant about side issues.

Excepting Phil and Rob's contributions, most of these
are not coming from stupid people - just disappointed ones with
the very human tendency of not wanting to face an unpleasant reality.

I've been very disappointed with many of the childish attempts at
diversion over in the moderated USCF forums. At you point out, for
the most part, these are not stupid people.

On Oct 11, 1:52 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:47:01 -0700, "David Kane"

wrote:
Now, here's the kicker, Phil. Something you've evidently missed.
Dissing a bunch of stupid arguments against evidence
(1) Doesn't necessitate the evidence being true or even reasonable
(2) Doesn't preclude the possibility of valid arguments against the
evidence.
Theoretically this is true, but in reality when people make ludicrous
arguments it is usually because there are no strong arguments to
make.

Yup. If you can refute evidence, you cut right to the quick and do it
-- not start waxing indignant about side issues.

Excepting Phil and Rob's contributions, most of these
are not coming from stupid people - just disappointed ones with
the very human tendency of not wanting to face an unpleasant reality.

I've been very disappointed with many of the childish attempts at
diversion over in the moderated USCF forums. At you point out, for
the most part, these are not stupid people.

Hmmmm? I think someone may have just tried to " insulate" me. (LOL.
Done for TK's appreciation!)
I have found the smartest people are wise enough to not take
themselves too seriously.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:04:22 -0000, Rob wrote:


Hmmmm? I think someone may have just tried to " insulate" me. (LOL.
Done for TK's appreciation!)

Heh, heh, heh. I can't blame you for resembling that remark.

On Oct 11, 2:16 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:04:22 -0000, Rob wrote:
Hmmmm? I think someone may have just tried to " insulate" me. (LOL.
Done for TK's appreciation!)

Heh, heh, heh. I can't blame you for resembling that remark.

Thanks! :-)

..Thanks, this lightens my work day.

How about this angle I've seen on Usenet--perhaps Truong is telling
the truth:

31) S. Polgar's kids did the fake Sloan, Gordon, Lafferty, et. al.
attacks ("I don't know how to do it but a child can do it!") and after
all they're just kids.....and well, Sloan deserves it so let's forget
the whole thing.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:55:27 -0700, wrote:

.Thanks, this lightens my work day.

How about this angle I've seen on Usenet--perhaps Truong is telling
the truth:

31) S. Polgar's kids did the fake Sloan, Gordon, Lafferty, et. al.
attacks ("I don't know how to do it but a child can do it!") and after
all they're just kids.....and well, Sloan deserves it so let's forget
the whole thing.


And this was a supportive post?? Such friends.

Anyway, the Blind Monkey is kid friendly, especially to actual kids.
So..... BEEP

But, despite a rejection or two, you're still a valued contributor.
Why not check Phil's various outlets and see if you can find some
juicy nuggets?

On Oct 11, 1:08 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:55:27 -0700, wrote:
.Thanks, this lightens my work day.

How about this angle I've seen on Usenet--perhaps Truong is telling
the truth:

31) S. Polgar's kids did the fake Sloan, Gordon, Lafferty, et. al.
attacks ("I don't know how to do it but a child can do it!") and after
all they're just kids.....and well, Sloan deserves it so let's forget
the whole thing.

And this was a supportive post?? Such friends.

Anyway, the Blind Monkey is kid friendly, especially to actual kids.
So..... BEEP

But, despite a rejection or two, you're still a valued contributor.
Why not check Phil's various outlets and see if you can find some
juicy nuggets?

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.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:30:17 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

The List of the Blind Monkey is one thing and one thing only: A
collection of goofy arguments actually made by people trying to ignore
or disregard the evidence gathered and presented by Brian Mottershead.

It in no way evaluates that evidence or pronounces guilt.

That is less than the truth! The fact is that you add your own dismissive
comment to each and every line, thus eliminating all. Phil Innes

Of course. All items on the List of the Blind Monkey represent stupid
arguments against Mottershead's material. An argument that wasn't
stupid doesn't make the List.

I'm sorry - you confound two items - the way some factor is raised + your
opinion of the subject. Which was to dismiss the subject absolutely, right?
The idea that these are ideas are stupid, is your commentary, so far 23 of
them. And you do not phrase what you dismiss in the terms they are raised,
but by sarcastic dismmissal, which you can't own as your own action in this.

Now, here's the kicker, Phil. Something you've evidently missed.
Dissing a bunch of stupid arguments against evidence

What does that sentence mean?

(1) Doesn't necessitate the evidence being true or even reasonable

(2) Doesn't preclude the possibility of valid arguments against the
evidence.

(3) Doesn't mean you can get all Paris in a bottle, except by hypothetical
means... by speculation.

I suggest you try your best to come up with reasonable arguments
against Motterhead's findings. I need some fresh items for my List.

You are openly stating your attempt to pursue one course while dismissing
all others.

That is your own standard. You might get over yourself a bit to realise that
it ain't everybody's, and certainly no standard in law, and you are not a
judge and do not represent anything like any legal process. You are a
prosecutor of one point of view - admit it!

Phil Innes

I may discuss these issues elsewhere, and obviously have my opinions
based on what I've read thus far, but

The List stands alone, the List stands alone
And it sticks in your craw like a sharp fish bone
The List stands alone

"David Kane" wrote in message
. ..

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:30:17 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

The List of the Blind Monkey is one thing and one thing only: A
collection of goofy arguments actually made by people trying to ignore
or disregard the evidence gathered and presented by Brian Mottershead.

It in no way evaluates that evidence or pronounces guilt.

That is less than the truth! The fact is that you add your own dismissive
comment to each and every line, thus eliminating all. Phil Innes

Of course. All items on the List of the Blind Monkey represent stupid
arguments against Mottershead's material. An argument that wasn't
stupid doesn't make the List.

Now, here's the kicker, Phil. Something you've evidently missed.
Dissing a bunch of stupid arguments against evidence

(1) Doesn't necessitate the evidence being true or even reasonable

(2) Doesn't preclude the possibility of valid arguments against the
evidence.

Theoretically this is true, but in reality when people make ludicrous
arguments it is usually because there are no strong arguments to
make. Excepting Phil and Rob's contributions,

Except Phil and Rob's contributions, who actually know the people involved,
and witness to their character, there are no other contributions.

Phil

most of these
are not coming from stupid people - just disappointed ones with
the very human tendency of not wanting to face an unpleasant reality.

While I don't preclude the possibility of it happening in the future,
the number of even remotely credible alternate explanations
to date is zero.



I suggest you try your best to come up with reasonable arguments
against Motterhead's findings. I need some fresh items for my List.


I may discuss these issues elsewhere, and obviously have my opinions
based on what I've read thus far, but

The List stands alone, the List stands alone
And it sticks in your craw like a sharp fish bone
The List stands alone